Active Ageing Index 2012for 27 EU Member States

Presented by Asghar ZaidiProfessor in International Social Policy

On behalf of the AAI project team at European Centre Vienna and the project partners (Population Unit, UNECE, Geneva and European Commission’s DG Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion,

Brussels), and also the UNECE Active Ageing Expert Group

A Seminar at Age-UK, London 28 March 2013

2

1

Background of the Active Ageing Index Project

The Active Ageing Index Project

.... It has been a jointly-managed research project between the EC, the UNECE and European Centre Vienna; undertaken within the framework of activities of the EY2012 and marking the 2nd cycle of review and appraisal of the implementation of MIPAA and its European RIS.

Its aims are:.... to develop and launch the Active Ageing Index (AAI), using the latest data

available for older people, to serve as a new evidence gathering tool to promote and monitor active ageing at the national level, for men and women, and offer insights for mutual learning of most appropriate policy implementations.

1.1 Policy context at the EU level

I. Designation of 2012 as the European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations has intended to highlight the valuable contributions older people make 1) to society and the economy; 2) to identify and disseminate good practices; and 3) to encourage policy initiatives.

II. ‘Europe 2020 – A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth’ for EU countries, which stresses the importance of: “the challenge of promoting a healthy and active ageing population to allow for social cohesion and higher productivity”

III. European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP-AHA) – under Innovation Union flagship initiative, setting out the target to increase the average healthy lifespan of Europeans by 2 years by 2020; and in the process initiate measures to help older people remain healthy and autonomous as they age.

1.2 Requirements from the AAI project’s TOR

I. The need for a high-quality and independent evidence base, going beyond analysis of individual indicators and to address how the experience of ageing can be combined with improved health and a greater degree of activity and autonomy.

II. Insights drawn from the comparative analysis, which provides unique insights to national policymakers that are not available from the national data alone.

III. Develop a framework and the methodology that can (credibly) select and aggregate a diverse set of indicators of active ageing (and then also disaggregate)

IV. Undertake consultations with key stakeholders: national data collection and policymaking communities; international experts; global discussion forums, and in the process help shape future research and policy agendas.

1.3 Consultations

Work has been undertaken:.... in close consultation with the UNECE Active Ageing Expert Group, which included UNECE and the European Commission, OECD, AGE Platform Europe, Eurostat and national statistical agencies and policymaking bodies;

… by liaising with the UNECE’s Working Group on Ageing, formed by UNECE’s Member States in 2008, particularly to see its potential for other non-EU European countries (e.g. CIS countries).

Work presented and discussed at:•World Demographic and Ageing Forum, St. Gallen, Switzerland (Aug 2012)•UNECE Ministerial Conference on Ageing, Vienna (September 2012)•Fifth Bureau Meeting of the Working Group on Ageing, Geneva (Nov 2012)•The Closing Conference of the EY2012, Nicosia (December 2012)

2Conceptualising and measuring

active ageing

2.1 Active ageing as a multidimensional and measurable concept – definition arising from the AAI 2012 project

“Active ageing refers to the ageing phenomenon in which, with rising life expectancy, people are expected and enabled to continue to be 1)employed as well as engaged in other 2)unpaid productive activities and 3)live healthy, independent and secure lives in their older ages. ”

Also, in view of diversities across European countries and subgroups, it is essential to assess not just how countries and subgroups fare in terms of the actual experiences of active ageing in older ages but also measure the capacity of older people that can still be tapped to improve their quality of life and to make public welfare systems more sustainable.

2.2 Building blocks of the active ageing concept

Following the definition, there will be four domains of active ageing:

1.Employment of older workers2.Social activity and participation of older people3.Independent and secure living of older persons4.Capacity for active and healthy ageing and enabling environment

Following these domains, the AA is to be defined in two dimensions:

I.Actual experiences of active ageing (1st, 2nd and 3rd domain) and II.Capacity / ability to actively age (4th domain).

And, focus is on the current generation of ‘older’ population; thus using a snapshot of their ageing experiences, on the basis of the

most recent evidence (no life course perspective!).

The gender disaggregation has been considered essential in understanding fully the active ageing in EU countries

2.3 Methodology (1): Selection criteria for indicators

1. Outcome indicators, instead of input or process indicators

2. International comparability within EU27 countries … ruling out indicators drawn from national data sources alone.

3. Coverage of countries: the minimum syndicale to be EU27 coverage; and data for the most recent year.

4. Replicability of results essential: not necessarily annual; should rule out use of special modules / studies!

5. Data quality considerations e.g. Subjective variables subject to cultural bias, thus used only when absolutely essential!

6. Assigning normative value judgement in developing ‘positive’ indicators, with the clear interpretation of “more-is-better”;

7. Parsimony over number of indicators selected and smart use of left out indicators for the ‘contextual analyses’ in the follow-up project.

2.3 Methodology (2): The domains and their indicators

2.3 Methodology (3): Aggregation to a composite AAI

The AA indicators are aggregated by following the HDI methodology:•First, the data for each individual indicator is expressed as a positive indicator, in percentage terms, whose upper goalpost is assumed as 100%.•Second, for each domain, the arithmetic weighted average of the indicators is calculated. Indicator-specific weights are drawn from the recommendations of the expert group.•Third, the overall aggregated indicator is then calculated as the arithmetic weighted average of the domain-specific indices. The weights used for the four domains are 35, 35, 10 and 20, respectively.

Advantage: it allows for the AAI to be displayed in an appealing manner by informing policymakers about the active ageing shortfall observed in their country.

Disadvantage: Not useful in the decomposition of the composite index (unlike z-score methodology which was ruled out for its difficult numerical interpretation to wider non-academic audience)

3Key findings

3.1 Overall AAI (for all domains and men & women) 3.2 Gender differences (for all domains together)

1) The countries at the top are SE and DK, followed by IE, the UK and the NL

2) The bottom ranked countries are largely CEECs (except CZ) and also Greece

3. Women fare worse than men, particularly so in the three Southern European countries but also in the NL and LU

AAI ranking is in line with the aggregate measure of GDP per capita (a proxy of wealth and standard of living)

A high correlation with per capita GDP shows that the countries with relatively higher standards-of-living are generally more successful in generating active ageing experiences and better capacity

and enabling environment for active ageing among older people.

The correlation with per capita GDP is even higher when comparing with AAI for men only.

• They have almost the same AAI (overall) and show almost the same capacity and enabling environment for AA, despite the fact that the NL is ranked higher than the UK in terms of GDP per capita.

• The UK outperforms the NL in the employment domain index, but falls short in the social participation domain;

• The gender disparity needs to be reduced in the NL (as can be seen for the overall index as well as for the employment and the social participation domain)

3.3 Two country examples (UK and NL) to highlight the usefulness of AAI for policy insights

OVERALL Employment Social participation

Independent living Capacity for active ageing

1 Sweden 2 Denmark 3 Ireland 4 UK 5 Netherlands 9 Germany 12 France 15 Italy 17 Spain 24 Greece 27 Poland

1 Sweden 3 UK 6 Denmark 8 Netherlands 10 Germany 11 Ireland 17 Greece 18 Spain 21 France 22 Italy 24 Poland

1 Ireland 2 Italy 4 Sweden 5 France 6 Netherlands 10 Denmark 11 UK 14 Spain 19 Germany 21 Greece 27 Poland

1 Denmark 2 Sweden 3 Netherlands 5 Germany 6 UK 7 Ireland 9 France 19 Italy 21 Poland 22 Spain 25 Greece

1 Sweden 2 Denmark 3 Netherlands 5 UK 6 Ireland 9 France 11 Germany 12 Spain 15 Italy 22 Poland 23 Greece

4Conclusions and future research

Conclusions

1. Several quite interesting and surprising results emerging, with the methodology chosen provides strong policy insights due principally to its comparative aspects but also due to the multidimensionality of the index.

2. Nordic countries do very well in the active ageing indices, and CEECs in general are ranked low – more research is required to disentangle impact of institutional differences (such as tax-benefit and social and health care systems’ differences) and differential behavioural responses of the older people concerned.

3. Interesting aspect is the heterogeneity in AA outcomes across different dimensions of active ageing (e.g. paid vs. unpaid work; outcomes vs. capacity/environment) – worth exploring further in pair-wise comparisons what countries can learn from each other!

StrengthsA transparent numerical exercise, with a potential to provide strong

policy insights in the current context of ageing societies and the policy reform challenges in making public welfare systems sustainable without compromising the QOL of older people.

Caveats The coverage to EU27 and replicability requirements of the AAI have

identified critical data gaps (a typical challenge to be observed when extending this work to non-EU countries, such as CIS countries.

Essential future research

• Contextual analysis towards identifying sources of cross-national differences is essential future work in this area

• Important to link active ageing experiences to positive outcomes:

• how and what forms of active ageing raise QOL of individuals concerned?

• What impact of active ageing discourse on the financial /social sustainability of public welfare systems?)

More details in the final report of the project

Active Ageing Index 2012A Legacy of the European Year for Active Ageing

and Solidarity between Generations

By

Asghar Zaidi, Katrin Gasior, Maria M. Hofmarcher, Orsolya Lelkes, Bernd Marin, Ricardo Rodrigues, Andrea Schmidt, Pieter Vanhuysse and Eszter Zolyomi

March 2013