IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/soinre/v150y2020i3d10.1007_s11205-020-02358-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the (non-)Use of Societal Wellbeing Indicators in National Policy Development: What Can We Learn from Civil Servants? A UK Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Corlet Walker

    (University of Edinburgh
    University of Surrey)

  • Angela Druckman

    (University of Surrey)

  • Claudio Cattaneo

    (Masaryk University)

Abstract

Gross Domestic Product is often used as a proxy for societal well-being in the context of policy development. Its shortcomings in this context are, however, well documented, and numerous alternative indicator sets have been developed. Despite this, there is limited evidence of widespread use of these alternative indicator sets by people working in policy areas relevant to societal wellbeing. Civil servants are an important group of indicator end-users. Better understanding their views concerning measuring societal wellbeing can support wider discussions about what factors determine indicator use and influence in policy decision-making. Taking the UK as a case study, we ask what views exist among civil servants in the UK about measuring societal well-being? To answer this question, we used a bootstrapped Q methodology, interviewing 20 civil servants to elicit their views about measuring societal well-being. Three distinct discourses emerged from our analysis: one that was concerned about the consequences of ignoring natural, social and human capital in decision making; one that emphasised opportunity and autonomy as key determinants of well-being; and one that focused on the technical aspects of measuring societal well-being. Each of these discourses has direct implications for the way that we integrate societal wellbeing into policy making and highlights the potential benefits of including end-users in indicator development and strategy.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Corlet Walker & Angela Druckman & Claudio Cattaneo, 2020. "Understanding the (non-)Use of Societal Wellbeing Indicators in National Policy Development: What Can We Learn from Civil Servants? A UK Case Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 911-953, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:150:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11205-020-02358-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11205-020-02358-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11205-020-02358-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11205-020-02358-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Toddi A. Steelman & Lynn A. Maguire, 1999. "Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 361-388.
    2. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/5l6uh8ogmqildh09h4687h53k is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Christopher Barrington-Leigh & Alice Escande, 2018. "Measuring Progress and Well-Being: A Comparative Review of Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 893-925, February.
    4. David Ockwell, 2008. "‘Opening up’ policy to reflexive appraisal: a role for Q Methodology? A case study of fire management in Cape York, Australia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 263-292, December.
    5. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    6. Geraint Ellis & John Barry & Clive Robinson, 2007. "Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 517-551.
    7. Hezri, Adnan A. & Dovers, Stephen R., 2006. "Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: Issues for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 86-99, November.
    8. Davies, B.B. & Hodge, I.D., 2007. "Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 323-333, March.
    9. Joseph Stiglitz & Amartya K. Sen & Jean-Paul Fitoussi, 2009. "The measurement of economic performance and social progress revisited: Reflections and Overview," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01069384, HAL.
    10. Jarl Kampen & Peter Tamás, 2014. "Overly ambitious: contributions and current status of Q methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3109-3126, November.
    11. Paul Allin & David J. Hand, 2017. "New statistics for old?—measuring the wellbeing of the UK," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(1), pages 3-43, January.
    12. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5l6uh8ogmqildh09h4687h53k is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Franco, Carol & Lawn, Philip & Talberth, John & Jackson, Tim & Aylmer, Camille, 2013. "Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 57-68.
    14. Joseph E. Stiglitz & Amartya Sen & Jean-Paul Fitoussi, 2009. "The measurement of economic performance and social progress revisited," Documents de Travail de l'OFCE 2009-33, Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).
    15. Glenn Everett, 2015. "Measuring National Well-Being: A UK Perspective," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 61(1), pages 34-42, March.
    16. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ottaviani, Fiona & Le Roy, Anne & O'sullivan, Patrick, 2021. "Constructing Non-monetary Social Indicators: An Analysis of the Effects of Interpretive Communities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    2. Fiona Ottaviani & Anne Le Roy & Patrick O'Sullivan, 2021. "Constructing Non-monetary Social Indicators: An Analysis of the Effects of Interpretive Communities," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) halshs-03161948, HAL.
    3. Fiona Ottaviani & Anne Le Roy & Patrick O'Sullivan, 2021. "Constructing Non-monetary Social Indicators: An Analysis of the Effects of Interpretive Communities," Post-Print halshs-03161948, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    2. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    4. Ghoochani Omid M. & Bakhshi Azadeh & Cotton Matthew & Nejad Azar Hashemi & Ghanian Mansour, 2015. "Environmental values in the petrochemical industry: A Q-method study in South West Iran," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 3(4), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Cuppen, Eefje, 2012. "A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 624-637.
    6. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    7. McNicholas, Grace & Cotton, Matthew, 2019. "Stakeholder perceptions of marine plastic waste management in the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 77-87.
    8. Eefje Cuppen & Suzanne Brunsting & Udo Pesch & Ynke Feenstra, 2015. "How stakeholder interactions can reduce space for moral considerations in decision making: A contested CCS project in the Netherlands," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(9), pages 1963-1978, September.
    9. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    10. Clare Hall & Anita Wreford, 2012. "Adaptation to climate change: the attitudes of stakeholders in the livestock industry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 207-222, February.
    11. Ernestina Rubio-Mozos & Fernando Enrique García-Muiña & Laura Fuentes-Moraleda, 2019. "Rethinking 21st-Century Businesses: An Approach to Fourth Sector SMEs in Their Transition to a Sustainable Model Committed to SDGs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-23, October.
    12. Matthew Cotton & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2011. "Discourses of Energy Infrastructure Development: A Q-Method Study of Electricity Transmission Line Siting in the UK," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(4), pages 942-960, April.
    13. Díaz, Paula & Adler, Carolina & Patt, Anthony, 2017. "Do stakeholders’ perspectives on renewable energy infrastructure pose a risk to energy policy implementation? A case of a hydropower plant in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 21-28.
    14. Dimitra Syrou & Iosif Botetzagias, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions Concerning Greek Protected Areas Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, March.
    15. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    16. Tomáš Hák & Svatava Janoušková & Alistair Whitby & Saamah Abdallah & Jan Kovanda, 2015. "Indicator Policy Factsheets: A Knowledge Brokerage Tool," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-16, March.
    17. Chang, Ruidong & Cao, Yuan & Lu, Yujie & Shabunko, Veronika, 2019. "Should BIPV technologies be empowered by innovation policy mix to facilitate energy transitions? - Revealing stakeholders' different perspectives using Q methodology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 307-318.
    18. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Matarazzo, Benedetto & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2015. "Stochastic Multiattribute Acceptability Analysis: an application to the ranking of Italian regions," MPRA Paper 68508, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Elvis Modikela Nkoana & Aviel Verbruggen & Jean Hugé, 2018. "Climate Change Adaptation Tools at the Community Level: An Integrated Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
    20. Vecchio, Yari & Di Pasquale, Jorgelina & Del Giudice, Teresa & Pauselli, Gregorio & Masi, Margherita & Adinolfi, Felice, 2022. "Precision farming: what do Italian farmers really think? An application of the Q methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:150:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11205-020-02358-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.