|Page tools: Print Page RSS Search this Product|
Within the context of the consultation process the key issue in respect of Measuring Australia’s Progress was developing the content of the publication. The content design work proceeded in four steps:
Choosing the presentational model
The ABS considered three possible models for presenting the measures of national progress - the one-number approach; the integrated accounting approach; and the suite-of-indicators approach.
One-number approaches combine information about multiple aspects of progress (such as, health, income and pollution) into a single composite indicator. Trends in the composite indicator may then be compared with more traditional measures such as gross domestic product. Combining multiple variables inevitably requires the compiler of the composite indicator to assign weights or values to different aspects of progress. So, for example, should a one-year extension of life expectancy be weighted more or less heavily than a 10 per cent increase in average income? The ABS believes that it should leave valuations of this kind to the users of its statistics, rather than imposing its own valuations.
Integrated accounting framework approaches present social, economic and environmental data in one integrated system of accounts. This is a powerful tool for analysis, but is complex and designed for use by experts. And, while the ABS is working toward integrated accounts, it will be some years before it will be possible for them to span all three domains.
Suite-of-indicators approaches display key measures of national progress side-by-side and discuss the links between them. Readers make their own evaluations of whether the indicators together imply that the nation is, on balance, progressing and at what rate. This is the approach used in Measuring Australia’s Progress.
Identifying the dimensions of progress
The ABS considered four main sources of suggestions regarding which aspects of progress to measure - international practice, national statistical frameworks, current policy issues, and the views of key stakeholders including the Australian community.
In identifying the dimensions of progress, it was recognised that international and national statistical agencies are undertaking a great deal of work to develop measures of progress (and of allied concepts such as wellbeing and sustainability). As part of the process, the ABS examined the several dozen frameworks and indicator sets emerging from this work, and distilled valuable insights from them. But none has yet emerged as the definitive approach and moreover it was important that the indicators be relevant to Australian concerns.
Some statistical initiatives aim to choose measures which relate directly to government policy - the European System of Social Indicators, for example. Many of the indicators shown in Measuring Australia’s Progress may assist the design and evaluation of government programs. But the indicator suite has not been chosen with that application in mind. The publication is meant to inform general public discussion of national progress, not to be used as a scorecard for government.
As noted above, the key ingredient in forming the dimensions of progress has been the extensive consultation process with key stakeholders and the Australian community.
Within this context, the following framework of indicators was formed:
Figure 1: DIMENSIONS OF PROGRESS
Selecting the progress indicators
When sieving through the thousands of potential indicators of national progress, the ABS had regard to several criteria, including the following:
For some dimensions of progress, it has not yet been possible to compile an indicator that satisfies all these criteria. In such circumstances the best available proxy or several proxy indicators as interim progress measures have been used, pending further statistical development work.
The above process resulted in a suite of around ninety indicators that, in the view of the ABS, would allow readers to formulate their own judgments about whether and how Australia has progressed during the past decade. To further assist readers it was decided to develop a subset of fifteen ‘headline indicators’.
Choosing the headline indicators
To be eligible for inclusion in the headline subset, an indicator was required to satisfy a further criterion, namely that most Australians would agree that movements in the indicator can be unambiguously associated with progress, other things being equal. The reason for imposing this additional criterion was to allow readers to run their eyes over a compact suite of headline indicators and form a quick summary judgment about which aspects of national life (taken individually) have shown progress and which have shown regress.
Inevitably the selection of the headline indicators using the above criterion was a difficult process. Distilling all the indicators down to the more compact headline set was easier for some dimensions of progress than for others:
The upshot of this is that the headline suite shows just two economic dimensions, seven social dimensions and six environmental dimensions. These numbers have been misinterpreted by one commentator as a signal that the ABS attaches much greater importance to social progress or environmental protection than to economic growth. That is not the case as was explained explicitly in the publication.