Abstract
AbstractGross 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.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Sociology and Political Science,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology
Reference74 articles.
1. Allin, P., & Hand, D. J. (2017). New statistics for old? Measuring the wellbeing of the UK. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society),180(1), 3–43.
2. Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update,33(1), 1–4.
3. Baker, R., Thompson, C., & Mannion, R. (2006). Q methodology in health economics. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy,11(1), 38–45.
4. Barrington-Leigh, C., & Escande, A. (2018). Measuring progress and well-being: A comparative review of indicators. Social Indicators Research,135(3), 893–925.
5. Barry, J., & Proops, J. (1999). Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics,28(3), 337–345.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献