CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION
IN THE MEDITERRANEAN
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
The role of civil society and
regionalism for progress in well-being
measurement projects – insights from
international case studies
Well-being
Research
Paper
Tommaso Rondinella, Anat Itay-Sarig
Chiara Assunta Ricci Project Wealth Local Sustainable Economic Development
Research Group Working Papers
Please cite this paper as:
Rondinella T., Itay-Sarig A., Ricci C.A. (2014), “The role of civil society and regionalism
for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case
studies”, Project Wealth Local Sustainable Economic Development Research Group
Working Papers
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
The role of civil society and regionalism
for progress in well-being measurement
projects – insights from international
case studies
Tommaso Rondinella, Anat Itay-Sarig
Chiara Assunta Ricci
Project Wealth Local Sustainable Economic Development
Research Group Working Papers
This publication has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union under the ENPI
CBC Mediterranean Sea Basin Programme. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility
of New Israel Fund-Shatil, Lunaria, JDC Institute for Leadership and Governance and can under no
circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union or of the Programme’s
management structures.
Editor: Asaf Raz
Copy-editing: Thom Rofe
English - Arabic Translation: Nabil Armaly
Hebrew Copy-editing: Yonit Neeman
Graphic Design: Ayelet Tikotzky
1 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Indicators and political choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Legitimacy, decision-making processes and the role of civil society . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Well-being, democracy and public decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Civil society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Civil society, democracy and public decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Regionalism, localism and well-being indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Five case studies, from the Canadian CIW to the Italian QUARS . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2. Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3. Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.4. USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.5. Italy: the QUARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.6. Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
The Role of Civil Society and of Regionalism in
Progress and Well-being Measurement Projects –
Insights from International Case Studies1
Tommaso Rondinella, Anat Itay-Sarig, Chiara Assunta Ricci2
Abstract
This paper discusses the roles of civil society and regional perspectives in processes
of well-being measurement. It relies on the basic assumption that a set of statistical
indicators that can feasibly grasp a country’s progress should, first of all, embody and
outline a widely shared vision of progress. Attaining such a vision requires processes
of democratic decision-making within both regional and national frameworks, to
determine which values and priorities our societies wish to pursue. Civil society can
provide fundamental contributions – in terms of stimulating social participation, bottomup approaches, activation of resources, sharing of information, understanding and
knowledge – by legitimizing perceptions of progress and social well-being, and by
more accurately defining indicators suitable for measuring them. Regional frameworks
for measuring well-being receive more public attention because they broaden the
stakeholders’ participation and influence, empower the regional level of governance,
and rely on tight links on temporal and spatial basis between needs, challenges,
visions of progress and policy. The paper reviews these issues theoretically, and then
looks at several case studies describing processes of regional and national well-being
measurement. The final part of the paper offers some conclusions that can be drawn
regarding the role of civil society and regionalism in promoting fair, equitable and
sustainable well-being.
Key words: progress indicators, legitimacy, regional well-being, well-being indicators,
civil society, decision-making, policy-making
1 Some parts of this working paper were presented in Project Wealth Local Sustainable Economic Development Research
Group (WealthR). The group is coordinated by Dr. Itzhak (Kiki) Aharonovich, Mandel Center for Leadership in the Negev, and
Asaf Raz, Shatil.
2 Mr. Tommaso Rondinella is a Researcher at ISTAT (Italy) – Technical-scientific secretariat to the presidency at ISTAT,
member of the support group within “BES”, the ISTAT- CNEL (National Council of Economy and Labour) initiative for the
measurement of Equitable and Sustainable Well-being in Italy; Dr. Anat Itay-Sarig is the director of Societal Progress and
Quality of Life Development at the Institution for Leadership and Governance (Israel); Ms. Chiara Assunta Ricci is member
of the research team of Lunaria and PhD Candidate at the Department of Economics, University of Rome Sapienza (Italy).
3 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
‫‪Promoting‬‬
‫‪Local Sustainable‬‬
‫‪Economic Development‬‬
‫תקציר‬
‫מסמך זה דן בתפקידה של החברה האזרחית ובהשפעתה של תפיסה אזורית על תהליכי המדידה של‬
‫איכות חיים‪ .‬בתשתית המסמך עומדת ההנחה לפיה על מנת ליצור תפיסה ראויה של קידמה במדינה‬
‫כלשהי‪ ,‬יהיה על מערך המדדים הסטטיסטיים שלה להקיף ולייצג חזון משותף רחב מאוד המשקף‬
‫אותה‪ .‬עיצובו של חזון כזה כרוך בתהליכי קבלת החלטות דמוקרטיים במסגרת ארצית ומקומית‪,‬‬
‫במסגרתם ייקבעו מהם הערכים וסדרי העדיפויות אותם מבקשת החברה שלנו לקדם‪ .‬לחברה האזרחית‬
‫יכולה להיות תרומה מכרעת ליצירת לגיטימציה לתפיסות של קידמה ואיכות חיים‪ ,‬כמו גם לחידוד‬
‫תהליכי ההגדרה של המדדים המעריכים אותן‪ .‬זאת‪ ‬באמצעות עידוד של השתתפות ציבורית בתהליכי‬
‫קבלת החלטות‪ ,‬הנחלת גישות הצומחות מהשטח וכן בעזרת הנעה והפעלה של משאבי ידע והבנה‪ ‬או‬
‫שיתוף מידע‪ .‬מסגרות אזוריות למדידת איכות חיים זוכות לתשומת לב ציבורית גדלה והולכת‪ .‬זאת‬
‫בשל תרומתן להרחבת ההשתתפות וההשפעה של בעלי עניין‪ ,‬העצמתן את הממשל האזורי וכן לאור‬
‫היותן נשענות על קירבה יחסית בין המקום והזמן בו מאופיינים צרכים‪ ,‬אתגרים ותפיסות של קידמה‬
‫למקום והזמן שבו מעוצבים כלי המדיניות‪ .‬המסמך נפתח בדיון תיאורטי בנושאים אלו‪ ,‬ובהמשך‬
‫מתאר בקצרה מספר מקרי מבחן המדגימים תהליכים של מדידת איכות חיים ארצית ומקומית‪ .‬בחלקו‬
‫האחרון של המסמך מוצעות מסקנות ביחס לתפקידיהן של תפיסה אזורית וחברה אזרחית בקידום‬
‫איכות חיים צודקת‪ ,‬הוגנת ומקיימת‪.‬‬
‫מילות מפתח‪ :‬מדדי קידמה‪ ,‬לגיטימציה‪ ,‬איכות חיים אזורית‪ ,‬מדדי איכות חיים‪ ,‬חברה אזרחית‪ ,‬קבלת‬
‫החלטות‪ ,‬עיצוב מדיניות‬
‫ملخّص‬
‫تتطرق هذه الورقة إىل دور املجتمع املدين واملنظور اإلقليمي خالل مسارات تقييم حسن الحال‪ .‬تعتمد الورقة عىل‬
‫الفرضية األساسية بأ ّن مجموعة من املؤرشات اإلحصائية القادرة عمل ًيا عىل فهم تط ّور دولة عليها أوال تجسيد ورسم‬
‫الخطوط العريضة لرؤية مشرتكة واسعة النطاق للتط ّور‪ .‬تحقيق هذه الرؤية يتطلّب مسارات اتخاذ قرار بشكل‬
‫دميقراطي عىل الصعيدين الوطني واإلقليمي‪ ،‬لتحديد القيم واألولويات التي تبغى مجتمعاتنا إعتامدها‪ .‬املجتمع‬
‫املدين يستطيع تقديم مساهامت جوهرية‪ -‬من حيث التحفيز عىل املشاركة املجتمعية‪ ،‬نُهج من أسفل إىل أعىل‪،‬‬
‫توفري املوارد‪ ،‬املشاركة باملعلومات‪ ،‬الفهم واملعرفة‪ -‬وذلك من خالل رشعنة مفاهيم التطور وحسن الحال املجتمعي‬
‫ومن خالل تحديد أكرث دقة للمؤرشات املالمئة لقياسهام‪.‬‬
‫توسع دائرة مشاركة وتأثري أصحاب الشأن‪،‬‬
‫تحظى األطر اإلقليمية لقياس حسن الحال باملزيد من االهتامم العام ألنّها ّ‬
‫تع ّزز املستوى اإلقليمي للحوكمة‪ ،‬وتعتمد عىل العالقات املتينة‪ ،‬زمن ًيا ومكان ُيا‪ ،‬بني االحتياجات‪ ،‬التحديات‪ ،‬رؤى‬
‫التطور والسياسات‪.‬‬
‫تستعرض هذه الورقة نظريُا جميع هذه القضايا ومن ثم تتط ّرق إىل عدة دراسات حالة تصف مسارات تقييم وطنية‬
‫وإقليمية لحسن الحال‪ .‬يستعرض الجزء األخري من الورقة بعض االستنتاجات بخصوص دور املجتمع املدين والجهاز‬
‫اإلقليمي يف تعزيز حسن الحال املنصف‪ ،‬املتكافئ واملستدام‪.‬‬
‫مفردات هامة‪ :‬مؤشرّ ات التطور‪ ،‬رشعية‪ ،‬حسن الحال اإلقليمي‪ ،‬مؤرشات حسن الحال‪ ،‬مجتمع مدين‪ ،‬إتخاذ القرارات‪،‬‬
‫وضع السياسات‪.‬‬
‫‪The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies‬‬
‫| ‪4‬‬
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
1. Introduction
Discussions about alternatives to the GDP, and about the empirical measurement of
progress, well-being and sustainable development, have been taking place for several
years now. While a whole set of complex technical-methodological issues have been
addressed, the first political issue – i.e. how indicators can be used to determine
a community’s political choices – and the various approaches to addressing it, are
relatively recent. Until not long ago there was consensus on the fact that economic
growth was beneficial to the attainment of common well-being objectives (longer life
expectancy, better health and housing conditions, education, emancipation). Slowly but
surely, however, the conviction has emerged that the economic development reached
by advanced capitalistic societies is unsustainable and problematic, environmentally,
socially, financially and even economically. It is from the ensuing lack of agreement
on the development model that growing criticism of its main indicator, the GDP, also
stems.
If we want to create a measuring tool for feasible progress – generally meaning the
increase of fair and sustainable well-being - we should first define the directions
our societies should follow. In this sense, the chosen progress indicators will reflect
the values and the priorities of those choosing them. A set of indicators effectively
describing any one country’s progress therefore needs to embody a nationally shared
idea of progress, and this may be implemented only through participatory democratic
decision-making regarding the values and priorities to be pursued.
When aiming to describe a national vision of progress, that vision should reflect and
encompass different perspectives within it. While incorporating civil society into the
process is a necessary element of this, it is important that it be done with an eye towards
local and regional points of view. Specific regions within the overall national picture
can differ significantly in a variety of measurable dimensions. A regional and local
perspective is bound to supply more feasible and well defined views on well-being, as it
takes into account local knowledge and the environmental differences between regions.
Within these regions, civil society provides its fundamental contributions - in terms of
stimulating social participation, bottom-up approaches, activation of resources, sharing
of information, understanding and knowledge – to legitimize progress and social wellbeing perspectives. The knowledge and abilities proposed by the civil society within
a region amount, when assembled, to a clearer and more effective picture on the
national level.
This paper is structured in five parts: the first introduces the current discussion on
5 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
progress and well-being indicators; the second deals with decision-making, the crucial
role of civil society and the legitimation it may provide for the selection of public
indicators; the third part addresses the issue of regionalism - its benefits and challenges
to well-being indicators; the fourth part presents five case studies describing indicators
created with the involvement of civil society actors through public participatory decisionmaking in national, local and regional frameworks. Finally, the conclusion reviews the
lessons that can be drawn from the cases regarding both the role of regionalism and
the involvement of civil society in the process of well-being assessment.
2. Indicators and political choices
“There are thousands of statistics which could be provided about the actual performance
of a car, but the dashboard provides only those which are useful (or even essential) to
the driver” (Van den Berghe 1998).
How may indicators that are useful in guiding a nation towards a fair and sustainable
well-being be chosen? The choice will obviously reflect the specific set of values and
priorities of whoever selects them, be they researchers, citizens’ communities or
institutions. In the past decades, indicators that have influenced decisions and public
policies have been relatively few, and all of them have been economic ones: the GDP,
of course, but also the inflation rate, the exchange rate, productivity or unemployment.
The economic development system, through production and wealth growth, has
improved the standards of life for millions of citizens in industrialized countries, and
gave economic indicators a dominant place within policy work and the public sphere.
In the 1940s, GDP was adopted by the newly formed International Monetary Fund
and World Bank as the key indicator of economic growth, and over the years it took on
deeper connotations of success and well-being. Right after World War II, increases in
GDP accompanied the improvements in social conditions, such as the decrease in infant
mortality, longer life expectancy and higher literacy rates. Thanks to this correlation,
GDP has become a dominant guiding principle. In the early 70s, the first criticisms of the
development model of the Western world began to generate an accompanying debate
around its most representative indicator, specifically addressing the GDP’s structural
inability to grasp all the well-being aspects of ever more complex societies. The most
substantial criticism of the GDP revolves around its inability to differentiate between
positive and negative consumption. This means that it counts goods regardless of their
value to well-being – including consumption following wars, natural disasters, loss of
6 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
environmental resources, sickness etc. Similarly, it also does not count goods that
have positive value to well-being if they do not translate to monetary value (such as
volunteer work, time spent with friends and family etc.). The GDP is furthermore not
sensitive to growing disparities between regions in its representation of the national
growth rate. This translates into the possibility of ignoring certain regions (or granting
them lower priority) because they disappear into the bigger picture of the national GDP.
Several attempts to replace or improve GDP have been published since the late 1980s
(such as Daly and Cobb, 1989), but they focused on the environmental damage of
the GDP and did not receive enough attention. Later on, as the damages of focusing
on GDP became more evident, this debate produced several more or less successful
attempts to substitute, improve or supplement the GDP. Several scientific articles
review so-called “alternative indicators to GDP” (Gadrey et al. 2005; Goossens 2007;
Stiglitz et al. 2008; Segre et al. 2010), whose goal is to measure the progress of society,
or better - as in the definition proposed by IISD and OECD in the Bellagio STAMP
(SusTainability Assessment and Measurement Principles) (Hardy and Zdan 1997)
- the ability of a society to supply its members with sustainable well-being, without
threatening the well-being of future generations.
In order to provide the grounds for the selection and combination of the single indicators
into a meaningful composite index, in accordance with the fit-for-purpose principle, it is
first necessary to develop a theoretical framework. Indeed, as emphasized in an OECD
working paper (Scrivens and Iasiello, 2010), one of the main challenges in defining a
set of indicators for representing societal progress is the issue of the legitimacy of that
set in the eyes of “the intended users,” meaning that it highlights issues that they deem
to be important, and that the indicators chosen “provide meaningful measures of those
issues.” The general indication provided is that indicators should be chosen “with the
participation of those who will use and learn from them.” Equally important is choosing
the most appropriate information system (i.e. fit-for-purpose information) within which
to use progress indicators; this choice already implies considering the possibility of
using composite indices (a narrow set of key indicators) rather than a broader, more
complete “dashboard.” To summarize, the main issues of the debate on alternative
indicators to the GDP has followed three main directions: 1) which indicators best
describe well-being and/or sustainability, 2) whether to aggregate them, and 3) how to
aggregate them.
From the political point of view, the main open question is the process by which indicators
are identified and developed. Three approaches to this can be found in the literature:
top-down, bottom-up and the so-called “bi-directional methodology” (Michalos et al.
2010). The first foresees that the indicators are chosen only by the expert/s charged
7 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
with putting together the set (Nordhaus and Tobin 1972; Osberg and Sharpe 2002;
Redefining progress 2004). The second involves stakeholders, usually members of
a specific territorial community who take part in designing the set of indicators for
their area (Atkisson et al. 1997; Valentin and Spangerberg 2000). The third approach
theorizes a mixed model.
While the top down approach cannot claim political legitimacy (Innes 1990), the purely
bottom up one, though politically legitimized, suffers from the limitations of citizens’
knowledge and expertise. The citizens might, for example, without being fully aware of
the implications, be supportive of unsustainable lifestyles and consumption patterns,
a risk which makes the “guiding role” taken up by experts useful for this framework.
The pragmatic methodology, the third one mentioned earlier, seems to be the most
appropriate to guarantee both legitimacy and coherence towards sustainable wellbeing objectives.
Once the indicators’ set content has been clarified, how should it affect political
choices? Indicators, and the statistical information deriving from them, have an impact
on both decisions by policy makers – “what we measure is what we do” (Stiglitz et al.
2009) – and on citizens and society in general. Values obviously play a fundamental
role in this: “we measure what we care about and we care about what we measure”
(Meadows 1998).
The production and circulation of statistical information are central in the creation of
knowledge and in the expansion of the set of information used to make decisions
(Giovannini 2009), steering political decisions and helping citizens to form their own
opinions on the measured social phenomena. If end-users are involved in the indicators’
elaboration, chances increase that the information the indicators provide – based on
shared values and knowledge – will be relevant to the decisions that are made on their
behalf. This is why attention is often given to the various stakeholders in the selection
of indicators. The broad participation of the public (Hardy and Zdan 1997) becomes
essential to selecting the most appropriate indicators, and to legitimizing them, thus
allowing citizens to play an active role in the life of their community. In this regard
Scrivens and Lasiello (Scrivens and Lasiello 2010) have identified three fundamental
characteristics that a set of progress indicators must have in order to impact political
decision-making: the set must be fit-for-purpose, motivating to stakeholders and
legitimized. In this sense the legitimacy of the indicators’ set derives from the shared
conviction that the indicators adequately represent all the relevant issues. Within
democratic systems, public decision-making through civil society actors may supply
this precious tool for political legitimation.
8 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
3. Legitimacy, decision-making processes and
the role of civil society
3.1. Well-being, democracy and public decision-making
As demonstrated by the very first works by Amartya Sen, down to those by Martha
Nussbaum, well-being and democracy are very closely linked (Sen 1982; Sen 2000;
Nussbaum 2001). Democracy’s recent history points, however, at one contradiction:
in the past thirty years democracy has expanded itself in various world regions, while
exactly there where it developed – in Europe, in Japan and in the USA – strong crisis
signals have emerged in terms of democratic legitimacy (Norris 1999; Pharr and Putnam
2000). The symptoms are known: the very low electoral participation, the declining
credibility of political parties and trade unions, the growing gap between people and élites
provoking feelings of abandonment, the fading away of traditional socio-cultural points
of reference, and the power management without ongoing trustworthy connections
with voters. The crisis of democracy goes beyond institutional representation and
involves the cognitive dimension: in this sense it is a social readability crisis directly
connected to the increasing variety of lifestyles, of ethical and cultural orientations,
of social complexity (Crouch 2003; Rosanvallon 2009). As a consequence, and as
an answer to the need to radically re-think the conditions and terms of democratic
legitimacy, a new theoretical paradigm has emerged since the end of the 1980s: the
deliberative paradigm. Starting from the analysis of processes characterizing public
decision-making, its academic and public success shows, in the first place, as Bernard
Manin writes:
“(…) 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. The deliberative principle
is both individualistic and democratic. 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 (…). We must
affirm, at risk of contradicting a long tradition, that legitimate law is the
result of general deliberation, and not the expression of the general
will.” (Manin 1987, 352)
9 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
Public decision-making, which may very briefly be defined as the public exchange of
information and opinions among citizens aiming at a common decision, is the necessary
process through which collective choices should be shaped and made. All contexts and
communication frameworks, both institutional and extra-institutional, that are related to
the shaping of the choice possibilities within a democratic community, should therefore
be taken into account (Bohman and Rehg 1997; Elster 1998). Public deliberation
creates legitimized and binding rules when it fosters free and aware agreements among
equals, with no external pressures on individuals mutually acknowledging themselves
as equal, freely introducing and impartially dealing with issues, needs and demands
(Habermas 1985). The essential conditions for public deliberations are: equality among
participants, the inclusion in the decision-making process of all those implementing the
decisions to be taken, the free, public and equal representation of interests, and the
pursuit of the common good.
Community indicators can be seen - along with other innovations such as popular
juries, deliberative surveys, town meetings and participatory budgeting - as a way
to increase the role of civil society in public decision-making, and thus increase the
legitimacy, political support and motivation surrounding these decisions (Saward
2000; Gastil and Levine 2005). The role of civil society, which emphasizes the relation
between those governing and those being governed, is part of broader set of elements
that question and define the political and institutional dimensions of our democracies.
As has been argued in various works, public choices cannot be legitimized through
the formal State bodies alone, be they institutional, juridical, constitutional, but must
necessarily also be based on contributions from civil society, which functions in this
context as an autonomous and non-formalized space in which the making of public
opinions starts (Habermas 2001b; Benhabib 1996; Bohman 1996).
3.2. Civil society
Civil society is an elusive analytical category, first because it includes a plurality of
roles and expectations, placed upon it by a variety of different historical, geographical
and cultural contexts (Chambers and Kymlicka 2002), and second because of the
heterogeneous social, juridical and structural elements constituting it. A preliminary
definition may be useful to clarify its central components:
“We understand ‘civil society’ as a sphere of social interaction
between economy and state, composed above all of the intimate
sphere (especially the family), the sphere of associations (especially
voluntary associations), social movements, and forms of public
10 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
communication. Modern civil society is created through forms of selfconstitution and self-mobilization. It is institutionalized and generalized
through laws, and especially subjective rights, that stabilize social
differentiation. While the self-creative and institutionalized dimensions
can exist separately, in the long term both independent action and
institutionalization are necessary for the reproduction of civil society.”
(Cohen and Arato 1992, ix)
Civil society is a third sector, in addition to the sectors of State and market (Cohen and
Arato 1992), which derives its authority from a shared perception of the fundamental
civil rights of individuals in a society (Habermas, 1986). Many actors play a role within
civil society: families, informal groups, civic associations, social and political movements,
and these actors connect, through various mediation levels, citizens to the State and,
more indirectly, to the market. In this sense civil society may be interpreted as the
kingdom of intermediate associations, based on the principle of voluntary membership,
with three specificities: the protection of fundamental rights and updating of social
demands, autonomous and inclusive civic participation, and the public sphere within
which problems, interests and identities are perceived and spelled out (Cohen and
Arato 1992; Habermas 2001a). Civil society includes a great variety of local groups
from neighbourhood associations to self-help organizations, as well as large, global
international NGOs (Walzer 2003) and, from the normative point of view, civil society
organizations are so well-rooted in their interaction with the public sphere that they are
by now essential for human relations based on social solidarity (Cohen and Arato 1992).
Egalitarian participation exercises practiced within civil society help develop social
responsibility and civic awareness, because associative life:
c
fosters integration, creating social cohesion within which solidarity and
interpersonal trust may develop (Putnam 2000);
c
facilitates the expression of the members’ needs and interests, stimulating
social cooperation and the pursuit of common objectives (Wright 1995);
c
assumes the respect of differences, both within and outside the associative
contexts, assuring individual autonomy, mutual respect and solidarity (Cohen
and Rogers 1995);
c
contributes to the dissemination and sharing of information and knowledge,
thus promoting critical approaches in the scientific and cultural fields (Fung
2003).
11 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
3.3. Civil society, democracy and public decision-making
Civil society supports the creation of an informed public, able to address relevant
demands to democratic institutions (Almond and Verba 1963; Putnam 2000; Edwards
2004). In this, it elaborates precious contributions for the implementation of the
democratic principles of autonomy, equality and participation, concepts belonging to
both democracy and civil society. As a result, civil society has been acknowledged as
the specific context within which democratic ideals may be practically realized (Dryzek
2000; Fraser 1992; Benhabib 1996). The involvement of civil society actors appears
today, with the rapid changes taking place in all spheres of private and public life, crucial
to addressing the new challenges with which we are confronted (Beck 2000; Bobbio
2002; Passerin d’Entrevès 2002; Arena 2008). It is basically a political contribution,
merging the cognitive and participatory dimensions, the work of activists and experts,
protest and proposta, and favouring the autonomous sharing of knowledge and social
learning which, in turn, may result in institutional learning (Pianta 2001; Marcon 2004;
Marcon 2005).
4. Regionalism, localism and well-being
indicators
While to date most of the empirical work has been done at a national level, recent
evidence suggests that regional work can play a distinctive and essential role in wellbeing assessment. A substantial amount of experience gained in the last few years
has shown that processes taking place at the regional level are extremely effective. In
this paper we focus on the regional level for two reasons: first, much has been written
in the past few years about local well-being indicators (council of Europe, Brutchy);
second, the regional level is under-studied, yet shows great success and potential
where it is being carried out.
Few major trends may explain the new focus on regionalism in well-being assessment
processes. First, while national GDP counts in many countries have continually grown,
regional disparities in those countries have grown too (Hess 2009), so that national
accounts of GDP do not necessarily reflect regional accounts, and may even obscure
the increased gaps between regions. Second, the way development and well-being
have been addressed by national policies reflects a rather centralized perception
that does not necessarily take local communities and regions into account (Teschner
2007; Teschner, Garb, and Tal 2010; Baruch and Raz 2012). Third is the growing
12 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
acknowledgment of the importance of local knowledge and its contribution to well-being
(Negev and Teschner 2013; Corburn 2005). Local knowledge may offer planners, for
example, new insights into the ways the qualities of a specific place affect people’s
well-being.
Civil society acts within and alongside the State, fulfilling many necessary roles. Wellbeing indicators that involved the civil society in their consolidation have been very
successful. More specifically, when the indicators were chosen in cooperation with
the civil society, in a local or regional manner, they strongly connected the public to
a shared vision (Wallace and Scmuecker 2013). Not surprisingly, civil society’s most
relevant contributions often come from working side by side with the local political and
administrative authorities rather than the national ones. The local institutions, such
as local municipalities, act within a unique environment – they are official political
institutions, grounded in a defined, relatively small and manageable area and society.
They therefore have a close familiarity with local issues and are more sensitive to local
public pressure.
The regional level can be an effective political scale in promoting local interests and
need (Gradus 1984; Gradus and Stern 1980). In many States, local authorities often
suffer from limitations arising from their small size. Small local authorities face a glass
ceiling when trying to promote their affairs within national institutions, and do not have
substantial budgets and freedom of decision making to make a difference on their own.
In such cases, in addition to the national and the local levels (each of which suffers
from its own limitations when it comes to affecting citizens’ lives) it is the regional level
that proves to be a powerful and effective actor (Andersen & Pierre 2010 ; Applebaum
& Hazan, 2005 ; OECD 2007; Reingewertz 2012).
Many states have already identified the importance of the regional level. When citizens
are asked regarding their well-being, they often identify the region as the most influential
factor – it is the services and opportunities that are found in their region that most affect
their well-being. This is most evident in domains such as health and education, but
applies to a substantial degree to other realms as well. The local and regional levels
are where most services are supplied, and so it is necessary that policy making for
well-being take place in these levels (Bradford 2005). Much more regional measuring
is therefore being carried out in the OECD, USA, UK, EU and more (Aslam & Corrado
2012 ;Bagstad & Shammin 2012 Wallace 2013 ;OECD 2013; ACOLA 2013; Larson
2010), and research shows that involving the civil society in well-being projects on the
regional and local levels can strengthen the ties between the public and the region they
live in (ACOLA 2013; OECD 2011).
The process of designing and assembling well-being indicators at the regional level
includes the following main characteristics:
13 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
14 |
c
At the national level, the partners working on well-being indicators are
often from within the government. For example, the statistics are under the
jurisdiction of the national Central Bureau of Statistics. Within the local and
regional level, however, some of the statistics are held by non-governmental
authorities. Accordingly, systems designed to help cope with the complex
necessary statistics have been developed, enabling the impact the civil
society brings with it to remain at its best (Walace & Schmuecker 2013).
c
Civil society should be involved in any well-being process, be it national or
other, yet its voice is clearer and more workable at the local and regional
levels. Though it is a powerful actor, on the national level it sometimes fades
into the background.
c
In complex surroundings, problems that can be addressed by just one
authority are very rare. Solving Youth issues, for example, often involves
the education system, welfare, local organisations, etc. Measuring and
monitoring well-being at a regional level offers better mechanisms for such
cooperation than are found at the national level (ACOLA 2013).
c
Civil society is a necessary partner to regional processes, and we see many
examples of how it shapes the effectiveness of the process. One example
is allowing private actors to champion some work on the indicators, as well
as harnessing all non-governmental organizations in the area towards one
collective goal (Brutschy, 2008, ASR 2012).
c
At the local and regional level, stakeholders (local government, third sector
and private sector) have the ability to react together to complex needs
arising in the field. Harnessing the different factors in the regions has proven
very effective to well-being processes, and strengthens the value of the
measurements (Walace & Schmuecker 2013; Taylor et al 2011; ACOLA
2013).
c
The local and regional process enjoys an intimate level of acquaintance with
the local environment and the local needs. For example, in Toronto, Canada,
increasing levels of violence were identified by a VITAL SIGNS project of wellbeing indicators long before official authorities noticed the new phenomenon
(Walace & Schmuecker 2013).
c
The regional level can react in a timely manner to any challenges arising
from the field, while they are still relatively small.
c
The process empowers the region - a level of governance that is often
burdened with many tasks, but that usually lacks power for effective action.
Similarly, it makes the task of finding resources easier because it aims at a
goal that is well-defined and close-to-home.
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
Naturally, there are also challenges. The mandate of a regional level is completely
different from that of the national one – both in terms of power and authority, and in
terms of budget. This is often the reason why a regional process requires (and not only
enjoys) the cooperation of the third and private sectors. That cooperation is often very
challenging, requiring substantial coordination. The regional process is also under the
obligation to distinguish between what is within its power to perform and what is not –
what must be treated by the central government, and therefore should be left outside
the realms of the local or regional well-being project. However, if the regional project
adheres to the abovementioned limitations, it can make a substantial difference to the
well-being of the entire region.
5. Five case studies, from the Canadian CIW to
the Italian QUARS
Many countries have developed sets of progress indicators in the past few years, but
only a few have done so with the involvement of civil society. In this section we review
some good practices that may be considered paradigmatic: the Canadian Index of
Well-Being (CIW), the Measuring Australian Progress (MAP), the State of the USA
and the process activated in Luxembourg. For the Italian case we will supply details
on the Sbilanciamoci! Campaign, which has created the QUARS progress index for
Italian regions, through the involvement of the campaign’s over forty Italian civil society
NGOs. For Israel, we will supply details on the ongoing process of developing wellbeing indicators at the national level, with the participation and strong influence of the
civil society.
As will hopefully be clear, these five experiences are substantially different in how they
involve civil society actors. Some of them have included many discussion opportunities,
while others have set only a few meetings, during which civil society is consulted but
does not take part in the decision-making process. Furthermore, in some cases civil
society representatives are invited to be part of the public deliberation based on their
specific competences, while in others they are invited as members of already existing
institutional structures, such as economic and social councils,. Finally, consultation
often uses dedicated websites, an approach with little legitimacy from the purely
deliberative point of view, as this option foresees no discursive interaction, and no
public exchange on the values and priorities that the participating community wants to
support and pursue.
15 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
Many of these cases are either working towards or actively involved in regional wellbeing measurement. Some are pioneers in the field. We will supply the regional
examples within the description of the national case study.
5.1. Canada
The CIW was an initiative of the Atkinson Charitable Foundation (ACF), undertaken
over several years through a consultation process involving over 800 persons. A first
prototype set of indicators was elaborated after consulting 346 participants divided into
40 thematic groups and spread all over the national territory. The prototype has been
critically reviewed by experts and stakeholders, selected from amongst academia, civil
society and government. In 2004 a national conference gathered 60 experts and gave
them the task, starting from the critically reviewed prototype that had been approved in
the previous working phase, of defining the various aspects which would then compose
the CIW. Between 2005 and 2006, 19 focus groups were created – around 250 people
from 14 territorial communities – with representatives from the government, private
business, media and local and national NGOs. At the same time, 14 opinion leaders
were interviewed. This allowed the involvement of important stakeholders and potential
end-users, as well as an in-depth analysis of the CIW key concepts. When the CIW
compilation was complete, it was transmitted for an external peer review, and in 2009,
five years after the beginning of the consultation, the Canadian Index of Well-being
was launched (Institute of Well-being 2009).
In terms of regional well-being, the CIW is cooperating with local and regional authorities
and organizations in each area, thus connecting the national project of well-being
indicators to regional and local ones, offering mutual learning and assistance. The
local and regional level feeds into the CIW, but primarily it impacts the local results.
For example, in Headwater, Ontario, the regional measuring is carried out by the civil
society and translated by the local authorities to policy making. The politicians gain
political power when attending to what the public has pointed out as needing focus.
One of their successes is adding 44% more medical personnel to the area, after this
was identified in 2008 as a major issue for regional well-being (HCIA, 2010; Vital Signs;
Walace & Schmuecker 2013).
5.2. Australia
The MAP initiative was begun in 2002 by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS),
which has involved a limited number of experts from civil society, the government,
academia and the internal network of the National Statistical Centres (NSCs) which
have the institutional task of regularly and constantly consulting users on measures
16 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
and priorities – one for each of the ABS thematic areas. The process has included
online consultations open to citizens and a series of workshops in all the Federal
capital cities. In 2011 the MAP 2.0 was launched, a new consultation phase also based
on the network of users involved in the NSCs and on a restricted group of experts, but
– in an attempt to more fully represent Australian society - also open to the business
world, professionals and local communities. Four additional working groups have been
given the task of specifically dealing with economic, social and environmental progress
and governance issues. To efficiently involve single citizens, a broader consultation is
currently being studied, with the use of social networks, blogs and online surveys.
In terms of regional well-being, Australia has identified that the regional level is
necessary for creating a difference to citizens’ well-being, and so is investing heavily in
involving regional authorities in defining and measuring well-being (MAP 2012 ;ACOLA
2013).
5.3. Luxembourg
A national consultation is currently under way in Luxembourg, built around the national
Economic and Social Council (ESC) – comprising representatives of the business,
workers and civil society communities – and the High Sustainable Development
Council (SCSD). These two institutions have created a joint committee, comprised of
government experts and supported by a technical group and a restricted working group,
which is charged with the task of selecting indicators. In order to enable extensive public
feedback, two public conferences have been organized to present the project, as well
as three one-day workshops, one for each of the three parts of the Stiglitz Report: the
economy and national accounting, quality of life, environmental sustainability. In this
stage of the work, around one hundred civil society representatives have already taken
part.
5.4. USA
The USA has a long tradition in elaborating community indicators, i.e. set of indicators
resulting from local participatory processes with the goal of steering local policies. In
2003 the Government Accountability Office (GAO), in partnership with the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), launched a national programme to create national key
indicators, the Key National Indicator System (KNIS) (GAO 2003). The GAO decided
that the whole process of a shared indicators system should be coordinated by a
private structure, independent of the government and of politics and able to address
itself to the various components of society. With this aim in mind, the State of the USA
was founded in 2007. State of the USA identifies relevant issues to be monitored,
17 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
gathers available statistical data – without, however, setting political objectives - and
publicly disseminates the gathered information, making it easily understandable and
avoiding value judgments. Today, State of the USA is an organization with a network of
37 advisors covering various professional specializations, geographical, political and
demographic areas, and its public consultation is carried out via the dedicated website,
through which citizens may offer opinions, criticisms and suggestions. A bipartisan US
Congress committee has been charged with analysing and drawing conclusions from
the gathered data.
In terms of regional well-being, the long tradition of community indicator projects is
very useful. Santa-Cruz County has developed some programs (in dealing with youth
alcohol abuse, for example) that are now being implemented across the USA and
have proved to be very effective (decreasing alcohol and drug use among teens by
50% over 8 years) (ASR 2012; Brutzky 2008). Santa Cruz County’s goals for 2015
were decided with the involvement of over 1000 civil society participants. This gives
great legitimacy to what is being done in the county, and assists it in recruiting federal
support and assembling financial resources.
On the border between USA and Mexico, there is a unique regional cooperation towards
well-being from both sides of the border. Measuring well-being there allows each side
to see how developments on the other side are affecting well-being, and to carry out
policy accordingly to improve well-being on both sides – i.e. across the region (Collins
et. al 2005, EPA 2012).
5.5. Italy: the QUARS
To build a widely shared measurement of social and environmental sustainable
development, the Italian civil society campaign Sbilanciamoci!, supported by a team
of experts, set up a wide consultation network, with more than 40 organizations
active at the national level on a number of different issues, in order to learn the civil
society’s priorities, i.e. identification of variables and weights, and at same time to grant
legitimacy to the selected variables and to the way they are combined. This process
allowed Sbilanciamoci! to identify key dimensions and variables that were ultimately
combined into a composite indicator (the QUARS, the Italian acronym for Regional
Quality of Development) using standard and sound statistical methodology.
The index had to give a complete picture of the key dimensions of sustainable wellbeing according to the view of the organizations joining the network. The consultation
process is, therefore, the central activity to better defining the concept of quality of
development. The QUARS is in fact representative of a large and diverse group, though
limited to the Italian civil society, the members of which may have different approaches
to regional development and different priorities for a desirable development path.
18 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
At the basis of the construction of the QUARS is the identification of the variables
that form its structure. The consultation process led to a set of 41 variables that
are representative, as much as possible, of the idea of sustainable well-being that
animates the work of the campaign. The set is composed of environmental, social and
economic variables, divided into seven groups of equal importance. The seven groups
are defined as follows:
Environment: evaluation of the environmental impact deriving from the forms of
production, distribution and consumption and policies adopted to mitigate its effects.
1.
Economy and labour: working conditions and income distribution guaranteed
by the economic system.
2.
Rights and citizenship: accessibility of services and social inclusion of young
people, the elderly, underprivileged people and immigrants.
3.
Education and culture: participation in the school system and quality of the
structures, education of the population, cultural activities.
4.
Health: quality, proximity and efficiency of service, general health of the
population.
5.
Gender equity: absence of sex-based barriers to participation in economic,
political and social life.
6.
Democratic participation: political and social participation of citizens and
elements of good governance.
The composition of the seven dimensions into the QUARS is able to provide an overall
picture of well-being in Italian regions, ranking them and synthesizing in a single number
the differences provided by the analysis of a high number of variables.
Over the past few years the campaign has published extensively, working to animate
the debate on well-being measures and to pressure national and local governments
and institutions to adopt a wider set of indicators. Among the outcomes of this activity is
the inclusion of QUARS amongst the best practices at EU’s Beyond GDP conference
(Goossens 2007) and participation in the OECD’s Global Project. The adoption
of QUARS by regional governments in Lazio (the region of Rome) and Tuscany in
their documents for economic planning (DPEFR—Documento di Programmazione
Economica e Finanziaria Regionale) shows the possibility of applying QUARS as a
tool for public regional reporting.
The application of QUARS for official regional reporting indicates its policy relevance
and its usefulness as a policy tool. Local authorities are asked to intervene on all
19 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
aspects addressed by QUARS. In this way, QUARS is meant to support decisionmaking on each dimension as well as on each one of the variables. After Sbilanciamoci!
was asked to assess the quality of development of the provinces of Rome, Trento and
Ascoli Piceno and of the municipalities of Arezzo and Cascina, the QUARS approach
was also used to conduct well-being analysis for some sub-regional levels, in some
cases with the building of an ad hoc indicator.
5.6. Israel
Designing an Israeli set of well-being indicators is an ongoing process that was instigated
by civil society – an NGO (The Israeli Society for Sustainable Economics). Project
Erech (Value, in Hebrew) has examined the existing data, and has also performed
workshops for various sectors within Israeli society in order to find out what they define
as well-being and would like to see measured (Itay, 2009). The project became the
official Israeli representative to the OECD Global Project. The Ministry of Environmental
Protection, together with the Central Bureau of Statistics, has acknowledged the
importance of the project, and has started working towards a government-led project
of well-being indicators in Israel. In December 2012 the government, led by the Prime
Minister’s Office, agreed to design and measure well-being indicators.
It was agreed that the framework would consist of nine domains, and the process
is focused on identifying the 8 most relevant indicators for each domain, as well as
a headlight indicator for each domain. The work is to take place in three layers: (1)
experts within the field of well-being have given their recommendations on the process
and the content alike; (2) experts from the relevant ministries as well as the civil society
within each domain are offering a preliminary list of indicators; (3) a public discourse
(in the form of a survey and workshops) is being designed to examine whether the
previous propositions indeed adhere to what the public sees as well-being indicators
for Israel. The public consultation is largely divided into three areas in Israel: north,
centre and south. The information gathered from the public is then submitted to the
domains’ teams of experts, who offer a final recommendation within each domain – to
be finally decided upon by the government’s steering committee.
The Israeli process is a nationally focused one, yet it involves much feedback from
different regions. Firstly, it ensures that the workshops for the public, involving around
500 participants, cover the three main areas in Israel. Secondly, the process has
adopted some changes to its format in order to accommodate regional need – such
as the possibility of conducting a regional analysis of the data that comes in as well. In
addition, as this initiative was initially launched by the civil society, it is safe to say that
the process that is now in place in some of the regions – to define well-being regionally
– will have an effect on the national outcome at some point in the near future. An
20 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
additional challenge refers to how the different well-being indicators would be linked to
policy making, and it might be the case that the pragmatic answers will come first from
the different regions and their local government.
The Israeli case is an example of a process that was initiated by the civil society, to be
officially declared only later as a government decision to develop well-being indicators.
The government decision has declared the importance of public participation in the
process, and so the work has grown to include different partners in the civil society.
One of the results is a quest to link policy making to the indicators, and to generate a
regional voice to challenge the government-led process.
6. Conclusions
As we have seen, in order to impact political decisions, a set of progress indicators
needs legitimacy. In light of the difficulties faced by democratic institutions to adequately
give voice to the requests and knowledge of an ever more complex and fast changing
society, it is essential that civil society actors be involved in the deliberative processes
for defining priorities and public choices. This is also true for the specific case dealt with
in this paper, of the creation of a common system of progress objectives summarized
through statistical indicators. It is encouraging that initiatives and good practices have
been spreading all over the world in an attempt to involve civil society actors in the
definition of sets of progress indicators based on participatory decision-making.
Another emerging dimension is the importance of regionalism in well-being assessment.
The regional level is considered by the public to be one of the most influential factors in
well-being. It offers a strong connection between policies and their target populations
and communities, and it provides an effective arena through which to promote local
interests and needs. It relies on local knowledge, a complementary and essential
addition to the knowledge usually defined as ‘professional’. The contribution of regional
well-being measurement processes can thus be twofold - leveraging local development
drivers on the one hand, and empowering the region to engage in meaningful dialogue
with the national level and to influence government policies on the other. Though one
of the benefits of regionalism is that it provides specific areas with the opportunity to
address their own distinct needs, this does not mean that regional assessment of wellbeing should work in isolation from other levels. Regional assessments may work in
harmony with other assessment levels, and be perfectly compatible with both local
and national assessment. At its best, a regional process involving civic society feeds
into the well-being assessment process on the national level, thus leading to effective
policy on all levels.
21 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
Bibliography
ACOLA, (2013) Australia’s Progress in the Twenty-First Century, Australian Council of Learned
Academies.
Almond, G. A. and S. Verba, (1963), The Civic Culture. Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Andersen, O. J. and Pierre, J. , (2010), Exploring the Strategic Region:Rationality, Context, and
Institutional Collective Action. Urban Affairs Review 46(2) 218–240.
Applebaum, L. and A. Hazan, (2005), Cooperation between Small Municipalities: Lessons for Israel. The
Foersheimer Institute for Policy Studies.
Arena, G., (2008), Cittadini attivi. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Aslam A., Corrado L., (2012), The geography of well-being, Economic Geography 12 (3): 627-649.
ASR, 2012)) Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 18, 2012.
Atkisson, A. (ed.), (1997), The community handbook: Measuring progress toward healthy and sustainable
communities, San Francisco: Redefining Progress.
Baruch, G., and Raz, A. (2012). Development “within” the Negev and not “of” the Negev - the opportunity
in changing one word. Ecology & Environment 115–116 (in Hebrew).
Benhabib, S., (1996), “Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy”. In Benhabib S. (ed.),
Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, pp. 67-94.
Beck, U., 2000 (1986), La società del rischio. Roma: Carocci.
Bobbio, L., 2002, “Le arene deliberative”, in Rivista italiana di politiche pubbliche, n. 3, pp. 5-29.
Bohman, J., 1996, Public Deliberation. Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge (MA): The
MIT Press.
Bohman, J. and W. Rehg (eds.), (1997), Deliberative Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics.
Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
Bagstad K.J., Shammin R. (2012) Can the Genuine Progress Indicator better inform sustainable regional
progress?—A case study for Northeast Ohio, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 18, July 2012, Pages 330–341.
Bradford,N. (2005). Place based public policy: Towards a newurban and community agenda for Canada.
The Canadian Policy Research Networks website.
Brutschy, S. & Zachary, D.C. (2008). Achieving outcomes from indicators: community assessment
projects in the United States, a focus on Santa Cruz County. In OECD (Eds.), Statistics, knowledge
and policy 2007: Measuring and fostering the progress of societies (pp. 517-528). Paris, France: OECD
Chambers, S. and W. Kymlicka (eds.), (2002), Alternative Conceptions of Civil Society. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Cohen, Jean L. and A. Arato, (1992), Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
Cohen, Joshua and J. Rogers, (1995), “Secondary Associations and Democratic Governance”. In Wright
E.O. (ed.), Associations and Democracy. The Real Utopias Project, Volume I. London: Verso, pp. 7-98.
Corburn, J. (2005). Street science: community knowledge and environmental health justice (Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press).
Crouch, C., (2003), Postdemocrazia. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Dryzek, J.S., (2000), Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Edwards, M., (2004), Civil Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Elster, J. (ed.), (1998), Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Fraser, N., (1992), “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing
Democracy”. In Calhoun C. (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press,
pp. 109-142.
Fung, A., (2003), “Associations and Democracy: Between Theories, Hopes, and Realities”. Annual
Review of Sociology, vol. 29, pp. 515-539.
22 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
Gadrey J. and F. Jany-Catrice, (2005), Les nouveaux indicateurs de richesse. Paris : Editions La
Découverte.
GAO, (2003), Key National Indicators: Assessing the Nation’s Position and Progress, GAO-03-672SP,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03672sp.pdf
Gastil, J. and P. Levine (eds.), (2005), The Deliberative Democracy Handbook. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Giovannini, E., (2009), “Bringing statistics to citizens: A “must” to build democracy In the XXI century”,
in Segone M. (eds.), 2009, Country-led monitoring and evaluation systems. Better evidence, better
policies, better development results, UNICEF
Goossens, Y., (2007), Alternative progress indicators to gross domestic product (GDP) as a means
towards sustainable development. European Parliament : Study IP/A/ENVI/ST/2007-10.
Gradus, Y. (1984). The emergence of regionalism in a centralized system: the case of Israel. Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space 2, 87–100.
Gradus, Y., and Stern, E. (1980). Changing strategies of development: toward a regiopolis in the Negev
desert. Journal of the American Planning Association 46, 410–423.
Habermas, J, (1985), Etica del discorso. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Habermas, J., (1986), Teoria dell’agire comunicativo. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Habermas, J., (2001a), “Sovranità popolare come procedura. Un concetto normativo di sfera pubblica”.
In Morale, Diritto, Politica. Torino: Edizioni di Comunità, pp. 81-103.
Habermas, J., (2001b), “Prefazione alla nuova edizione”. In Storia e critica dell’opinione pubblica. RomaBari: Laterza, pp. vii-xliii.
Hall, J., Carswell, C., Jones, R. and D. Yencken, (2005), “Collaborating with Civil Society: Reflections
from Australia”, in Statistics, Knowledge and Policy. Key Indicators to Inform Decision Making. Paris:
OECD.
Hardy, P and T. Zdan, (1997), Principles in practice. Winnipeg (Canada): The International Institute for
Sustainable Development.
HCIA (2012) Headwaters Communities in Action: Well-being Report.
Hess, D.J. (2009). Localist movements in a global economy: sustainability, justice, and urban development
in the United States (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).
Innes, J., (1990), Knowledge and Public Policy: the search for meaningful indicators (2nd ed.). New
Brunswick and London : Transaction Publishers.
Institute of Well-being, (2009), How are Canadians really doing?. Canada: Institute of Well-being.
Itay, A. (2009), Israel’s Progress Index: A Multi Layered Model for Measuring Progress and Quality of
Life. OECD publication.
Manin, B., (1987), “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation”. Political Theory, vol. 15, n. 3, pp. 338-368.
Marcon, G., (2004), Le utopie del ben fare. Percorsi della solidarietà: dal mutualismo al terzo settore ai
movimenti. Napoli: L’ancora del Mediterraneo.
Marcon, G., (2005), Come fare politica senza entrare in un partito. Milano: Feltrinelli.
Michalos, A.C., Sharpe, A. e N. Muhajarine, (2010), “An approach to the Canadian Index of Well-Being”.
Canadian Index of Well-being, University of Waterloo, Canada.
Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A.,& Giovannini, E. (2005). Handbook
on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. Statistics Working Papers STD/
DOC(2005)3, OECD.
Negev, M., and Teschner, N. (2013). Rethinking the relationship between technical and local knowledge:
Toward a multi-type approach. Environmental Science & Policy 30, 50–59.
Nordhaus W.D. and J. Tobin, (1972), “Is Economic Growth Obsolete?”. NBER Chapters, in: Economic
Research: Retrospect and Prospect Vol 5: Economic Growth, pp. 1-80. Cambridge (MA): National
Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Norris, P. (ed.) (1999), Critical Citizens: Global Support For Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Nussbaum M., (2001), Diventare persone. Donne e universalità dei diritti. Bologna: Il Mulino.
23 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
OECD, (May 2007), Competitive Regional Clusters: National Policy Approaches. Policy Brief.
OECD, (2011), How’s Life?: Measuring well-being, OECD Publishing.
OECD ,(2013), OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, OECD Publishing.
Osberg, L. e A. Sharpe, (2002), “An index of economic well-being for selected OECD countries”, Review
of Income and Wealth, series 48, n. 3.
Passerin d’Entrevès, M. (ed.), (2002), Democracy as Public Deliberation. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Pencheon, D., (2008), The Good Indicators Guide: understanding how to use and choose indicators. UK
National Health Service Institute for Innovation and Improvement website, www.institute.nhs.uk
Pharr, S. and R. Putnam (eds.), (2000), Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral
Countries?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pianta, M., (2001), Globalizzazione dal basso. Economia mondiale e movimenti sociali. Roma:
Manifestolibri.
Putnam, R.D., (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Redefining Progress, (2004), The Genuine Progress Indicator 1950-2002 (2004 update), www.
RedefinigProgress.org
Reingewertz, Y. (2012), Do municipal amalgamations work? Evidence from municipalities in Israel.
Journal of Urban Economics 72 (2012) 240–251
Rosanvallon, P., (2009), La politica nell’era della sfiducia. Troina: Città Aperta Edizioni.
Saward, M. (ed.), (2000), Democratic Innovation. Deliberation, representation and association. London
and New York: Routledge/ECPR Studies in European Political Science.
Scrivens, K. and B. Iasiello, (2010), “Indicators of “Societal Progress”: Lessons from International
Experiences”, OECD Statistics Working Papers, 2010/4. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:
10.1787/5km4k7mq49jg-en
Sbilanciamoci!, (2006), Come si vive in Italia? Indice di Qualità Regionale dello Sviluppo (QUARS)-2006.
Roma: Lunaria. www.sbilanciamoci.org
Segre, E., Rondinella, T., and Mascherini, M. (2011). Well-Being in Italian Regions. Measures, Civil
Society Consultation and Evidence. Social Indicators Research 102, 47–69.
Sen, A., (1982), Poverty and famines. An essay on entitlements and deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Sen, A., (2000), Lo sviluppo è libertà. Perché non c’è crescita senza democrazia. Milano: Mondadori.
Stiglitz, J., A. Sen e J. Fitoussi, (2008), Survey on existing approaches to measuring socioeconomic
progress. Issue Paper 25/07/08 - 1, Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and
social Progress, www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr.
Stiglitz, J., A. Sen e J. Fitoussi, (2009), Report by the Commission on the Measurement of
Economic Performance and Social Progress, www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr.
Teschner, N., Garb, Y., and Tal, A. (2010). The Environment in Successive Regional Development Plans
for Israel’s Periphery. International Planning Studies 15, 79–97.
Teschner, N. (2007). Planning the Development of the Southern Region of Israel: Ideological, Political
and Environmental Consequences. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (in Hebrew).
Taylor A., Newberry J., Nicholson M., (2011) A Planfor Well-being in Guelph
Valentin, A. and J. Spangerberg, (2000), A guide to community sustainability indicators. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review 20, 381–392.
Wallace J, Scmuecker K., (2013) Shifting the Dial: From well-being measures to policy practice, IPPR
North & CarngieUK trust.
Walzer, M., (2003), “A Better Vision: The Idea of Civil Society”. In Hodgkinson V. and M. Foley (eds.),
The Civil Society Reader. Hanover and London: Tufts University/University Press of New England, pp.
306-321.
Wright, E.O. (ed.), (1995): Associations and Democracy. The Real Utopias Project, Volume I. London:
Verso.
24 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies
Promoting
Local Sustainable
Economic Development
About Project Wealth
Project WEALTH: Promoting Local Sustainable Economic Development
(LSED), is implemented with the support of the European Union’s ENPI CBCMED Program. By fostering an alternative economic paradigm whereby wealth
is defined by the well-being of people and the planet, the project encourages
new approaches of local and regional sustainable economic development.
The project collaboration that includes partners from Israel, Italy, Portugal
and the Palestinian Authority facilitates a range of knowledge exchange and
networking platforms, that enable the sharing of best practices, as well as the
development of local initiatives
For more details and updates about Project Wealth:
Project Wealth Website: www.lsed-wealth.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kamambanegev
Contact: [email protected]
Project Manager: Dr. Baruch Gili, Phone: 0732-445445
Email: [email protected]
Statement about the Programme
“The 2007-2013 ENPI CBC Mediterranean Sea Basin Programme is a multilateral
Cross-Border Cooperation initiative funded by the European Neighbourhood and
Partnership Instrument (ENPI). The Programme objective is to promote the sustainable
and harmonious cooperation process at the Mediterranean Basin level by dealing
with the common challenges and enhancing its endogenous potential. It finances
cooperation projects as a contribution to the economic, social, environmental and cultural
development of the Mediterranean region. The following 14 countries participate in
the Programme: Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta,
Palestinian Authority, Portugal, Spain, Syria, Tunisia. The Joint Managing Authority
(JMA) is the Autonomous Region of Sardinia (Italy). Official Programme languages are
Arabic, English and French.”
25 |
The role of civil society and regionalism for progress in well-being measurement projects – insights from international case studies