Presentation of the Social Progress Index at "Development in the Nonprofit Sector," Dhahran, Saudi...

Social Progress Imperative #socialprogress

TITLE HERE DATE/LOCATIONOTHER

SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEXMichael Green, Executive Director SPI,Development in the Nonprofit SectorDhahran, Saudi Arabia, 5-6 December 2015


Economic Development

GDP per capita

Social Progress

2

THE PARADIGM OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN THAT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEASURED BY GDP WILL LEAD TO SOCIAL PROGRESS.

THE DUAL CHALLENGES OF DEVELOPMENT: INCLUSIVE GROWTH


BUT SOMETIMES THAT LINK IS MISSING.ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT ALWAYS LEAD TO SOCIAL PROGRESS…


GDP per capita

Social Progress

3



…AND SOMETIMES SOCIAL PROGRESS INFLUENCES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

4


GDP per capita

Social Progress



TO UNDERSTAND INCLUSIVE GROWTH WE NEED TO MEASURE SOCIAL PROGRESS DIRECTLY

Social Progress

?

5


Social Progress Imperative #socialprogress6

SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX: DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Outcomes – not inputs

Actionability

Relevant to all countries

Exclusively social and environmental indicators


THE SOCIAL PROGRESS FRAMEWORK


INDICATOR DATA SOURCES

Hard data62%

Ex-pert as-

sessment

s25%

Survey data12%

8

UN/World Bank (22 indicators)• World Health Organization (5)• UNESCO (5)• WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme

for Water Supply and Sanitation (3)• Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N.

(2)• International Telecommunications Union (2)• U.N. Sustainable Energy for All Project (1)• U.N. Development Programme (1)• U.N. Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality

Estimation (1)• U.N. Population Division (1)• World Development Indicators (1)

Hard data from other sources (10 indicators)• Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (4)• World Resources Institute (2)• Barro-Lee Educational Attainment Dataset (1)• Institute for Economics and Peace (1)• OECD Development Centre (1)• Yale University Center for Environmental Law

& Policy (1)

Survey data (6 indicators)• Gallup (5)• World Economic Forum (1)

Expert Assessments (14 indicators)• Institute for Economics and Peace (3)• Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights

Dataset (3)• Pew Research Center (2)• Freedom House (1)• Fund for Peace (1)• Heritage Foundation (1)• Reporters without Borders (1)• Transparency International (1)• Times Higher Education World

University Rankings, QS World University Rankings, and Academic Ranking of World Universities(1)


SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX FRAMEWORK INDICATORS 2015

9

Basic Human Needs Opportunity

Nutrition and Basic Medical Care Undernourishment Depth of food deficit Maternal mortality rate Child mortality rate Deaths from infectious diseases

Water and Sanitation Access to piped water Rural access to improved water source Access to improved sanitation facilities

Shelter Availability of affordable housing Access to electricity Quality of electricity supply Indoor air pollution attributable deaths

Personal Safety Homicide rate Level of violent crime Perceived criminality Political terror Traffic deaths

Access to Basic Knowledge Adult literacy rate Primary school enrollment Lower secondary school enrollment Upper secondary school enrollment Gender parity in secondary enrollment

Access to Information and Communications Mobile telephone subscriptions Internet users Press Freedom Index

Health and Wellness Life expectancy Premature deaths from non-

communicable diseases Obesity rate Outdoor air pollution attributable deaths Suicide rate

Ecosystem Sustainability Greenhouse gas emissions Water withdrawals as a percent of

resources Biodiversity and habitat

Personal Rights Political rights Freedom of speech Freedom of assembly/association Freedom of movement Private property rights

Personal Freedom and Choice Freedom over life choices Freedom of religion Early marriage Satisfied demand for contraception Corruption

Tolerance and Inclusion Tolerance for immigrants Tolerance for homosexuals Discrimination and violence against minorities Religious tolerance Community safety net

Access to Advanced Education Years of tertiary schooling Women’s average years in school Inequality in the attainment of education Globally ranked universities

Social Progress Index

Foundations of Wellbeing

9


GLOBAL PERFORMANCE ON SOCIAL PROGRESS

10


FOR THE WORLD HAS A WHOLE WE CAN SEE WHICH AREAS WE HAVE MADE THE MOST PROGRESS…AND THE LEAST

11


THE WORLD IS DOING BEST IN AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN THE FOCUS OF THE MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS


THE WORLD STRUGGLES MOST WITH PERSONAL RIGHTS AND TOLERANCE AND INCLUSION


THOUGH NOT THE WORST AREA OF PERFORMANCE, ECOSYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY IS AT RISK OF GETTING WORSE


COUNTRY PERFORMANCE


SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX VS. GDP PER CAPITA (PPP)*



NOR



CAF

NOR



NZL

CAF

NOR



NZL

MWI

CAF

NOR



NZL CAN

MWI

CAF

NOR



NZLGBR

CAN

MWI

CAF

NOR



NZL

USAGBR

CAN

MWI

CAF

NOR



NZL

USAFRA

GBRCAN

MWI

CAF

NOR



NZL

USAFRA

GBRCAN

BRA

MWI

CAF

NOR



NZL

USAFRA

GBRCAN

BRA

ZAF

MWI

CAF

NOR



NZL

USAFRA

GBRCAN

BRA

RUSZAF

MWI

CAF

NOR



NZL

USAFRA

GBRCAN

BRA

RUSZAF

CHN

MWI

CAF

NOR



NZL

USAFRA

GBRCAN

BRA

RUSZAF

CHN

IND

MWI

CAF

NOR



NZL

KWT

USAFRA

GBRCAN

BRA

RUSZAF

CHN

IND

MWI

CAF

NOR



NZL

KWT

USAFRA

GBRCAN

CRI

BRA

RUSZAF

CHN

IND

MWI

CAF

NOR


SOCIAL PROGRESS DOES INCREASE WITH GDP PER CAPITA BUT IT IS NOT THE WHOLE STORY

KWT

CRI

BRA

ZAF

IND

MWI

CAF

NORUSA

FRA

NZLCANGBR

RUS

CHN


COUNTRY PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO GDP PER CAPITA

33


BENCHMARKING SOCIAL PROGRESS RELATIVE TO PEERS

• We define a country’s economic peers as the 15 countries closest in GDP PPP per capita. In order to reduce the influence of year-to-year fluctuations in GDP data, a four-year average is used (2010-2013).

• Each country’s performance is compared to the median performance of countries within the peer cohort.

• If the country’s score is greater than (or less than) the average absolute deviation from the median of the comparator group, it is considered a strength (or weakness). Scores are within one average absolute deviation are within the range of expected scores and are considered neither strengths nor weaknesses (neutral).

www.socialprogressimperative.org

Strengths and weaknesses are relative to 15 countries of similar GDP: Relative Strength n/a – no data availableNeutral

Relative Weakness

COSTA RICA

Score Rank Score Rank Score RankBASIC HUMAN NEEDS 84.22 41 S FOUNDATIONS OF WELLBEING 78.83 17 S OPPORTUNITY 70.59 25 S Nutrition and Basic Medical Care 96.60 59 N Access to Basic Knowledge 93.96 56 N Personal Rights 83.28 21 S Undernourishment (% of pop.) 5.9 73 N Adult literacy rate (% of pop. aged 15+) 97.8 54 N Political rights (1=full rights; 7=no rights) 1 1 SDepth of food deficit (cal./undernourished person) 41 73 N Primary school enrollment (% of children) 92.0 72 N Freedom of speech (0=low; 2=high) 2 1 SMaternal mortality rate (deaths/100,000 live births) 38 62 N Lower secondary school enrollment (% of children) 120.6 1 N

Freedom of assembly/association (0=low; 2=high) 2 1 N

Child mortality rate (deaths/1,000 live births) 9.6 46 N Upper secondary school enrollment (% of children) 78.8 62 N Freedom of movement (0=low; 4=high) 3 67 WDeaths from infectious diseases (deaths/100,000) 30.5 35 N Gender parity in secondary enrollment (girls/boys) 1.1 1 N Private property rights (0=none; 100=full) 50 39 N Water and Sanitation 92.65 48 N

Access to Information and Communications 80.66 35 S Personal Freedom and Choice 76.27 24 S

Access to piped water (% of pop.) 95.9 35 S Mobile telephone subscriptions (subscriptions/100

people) 146.0 1 N Freedom over life choices (% satisfied) 91.9 11 SRural access to improved water source (% of pop.) 90.9 61 N Internet users (% of pop.) 46.0 63 N Freedom of religion (1=low; 4=high) 3 55 WAccess to improved sanitation facilities (% of pop.) 93.9 50 N Press Freedom Index (0=most free; 100=least free) 12.2 18 S Early marriage (% of women aged 15-19) 0.13 78 W

Satisfied demand for contraception (% of women) 89.1 5 N

Corruption (0=high; 100=low) 54 33 S Shelter 81.98 30 S Health and Wellness 78.09 8 S Tolerance and Inclusion 73.58 17 S Availability of affordable housing (% satisfied) 47.9 60 N Life expectancy (years) 79.7 26 S Tolerance for immigrants (0=low; 100=high) 75.3 26 NAccess to electricity (% of pop.) 99.0 65 N

Premature deaths from non-comm. diseases (prob. of dying) 12.2 26 S Tolerance for homosexuals (0=low; 100=high) 52.4 31 S

Quality of electricity supply (1=low; 7=high) 5.6 34 N Obesity rate (% of pop.) 24.6 105 W Discrim. and viol. against minorities (0=low; 10=high) 4.4 29 S

Household air pollution attr. deaths (deaths/100,000) 5.4 1 N

Outdoor air pollution attributable deaths (deaths/100,000) 7.7 30 N Religious tolerance (1=low; 4=high) 4 1 N

Suicide rate (deaths/100,000) 7.5 54 W Community safety net (0=low; 100=high) 91.1 21 S Personal Safety 65.65 63 N Ecosystem Sustainability 62.61 31 N Access to Advanced Education 49.24 58 N Homicide rate (1= <2/100,000; 5= >20/100,000) 4 89 W Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalents per GDP) 248.1 4 N Years of tertiary schooling 0.7 34 SLevel of violent crime (1=low; 5=high) 2 20 S Water withdrawals as a percentage of resources 1.9 76 W Women's average years in school 10.8 62 NPerceived criminality (1=low; 5=high) 3 33 N

Biodiv. and habitat (0=no protection; 100=high protection) 89.6 24 N

Inequality in the attainment of edu. (0=low; 1=high) 0.16 61 N

Political terror (1=low; 5=high) 2 39 N Number of globally ranked universities 2 54 NTraffic deaths (deaths/100,000) 12.7 48 N Algeria, Serbia, Thailand, Iraq, South Africa, Montenegro,

Botswana, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Jordan, Macedonia, Egypt, Peru, and Tunisia

GDP per capita rank: 59/133

Social Progress Index rank: 28/133 Social Progress Index score: 77.88



Relative Weakness

UNITED STATES

Score Rank Score Rank Score RankBASIC HUMAN NEEDS 91.23 21 W FOUNDATIONS OF WELLBEING 75.15 35 W OPPORTUNITY 82.18 8 N Nutrition and Basic Medical Care 98.52 39 N Access to Basic Knowledge 95.33 45 W Personal Rights 82.16 24 W Undernourishment (% of pop.) 5.0 1 N Adult literacy rate (% of pop. aged 15+) 99.0 1 N Political rights (1=full rights; 7=no rights) 1 1 NDepth of food deficit (cal./undernourished person) 8 1 N Primary school enrollment (% of children) 91.8 73 W Freedom of speech (0=low; 2=high) 2 1 SMaternal mortality rate (deaths/100,000 live births) 28 55 W Lower secondary school enrollment (% of children) 98.0 57 W

Freedom of assembly/association (0=low; 2=high) 1 48 W

Child mortality rate (deaths/1,000 live births) 6.9 38 W Upper secondary school enrollment (% of children) 89.5 49 W Freedom of movement (0=low; 4=high) 3 67 WDeaths from infectious diseases (deaths/100,000) 31.3 37 N Gender parity in secondary enrollment (girls/boys) 1.0 1 N Private property rights (0=none; 100=full) 80 17 W

Water and Sanitation 98.68 28 WAccess to Information and Communications 85.00 23 W Personal Freedom and Choice 82.64 15 N

Access to piped water (% of pop.) 98.6 25 W Mobile telephone subscriptions (subscriptions/100 people) 95.5 87 W Freedom over life choices (% satisfied) 86.6 27 W

Rural access to improved water source (% of pop.) 98.0 41 W Internet users (% of pop.) 84.2 13 N Freedom of religion (1=low; 4=high) 3 55 WAccess to improved sanitation facilities (% of pop.) 100.0 27 N Press Freedom Index (0=most free; 100=least free) 23.5 36 W Early marriage (% of women aged 15-19) 0.03 32 W

Satisfied demand for contraception (% of women) 84.7 14 N

Corruption (0=high; 100=low) 74 15 N Shelter 90.05 6 N Health and Wellness 68.66 68 W Tolerance and Inclusion 74.46 15 N Availability of affordable housing (% satisfied) 69.0 7 S Life expectancy (years) 78.7 30 W Tolerance for immigrants (0=low; 100=high) 81.5 11 N

Access to electricity (% of pop.) 100.0 1 N Premature deaths from non-comm. diseases (prob. of dying) 14.3 35 W Tolerance for homosexuals (0=low; 100=high) 71.3 15 N

Quality of electricity supply (1=low; 7=high) 6.3 19 W Obesity rate (% of pop.) 31.8 126 W Discrim. and viol. against minorities (0=low; 10=high) 4.5 31 N

Household air pollution attr. deaths (deaths/100,000) 0 1 N

Outdoor air pollution attributable deaths (deaths/100,000) 33.6 78 W Religious tolerance (1=low; 4=high) 3 36 N

Suicide rate (deaths/100,000) 10.7 81 W Community safety net (0=low; 100=high) 90.1 27 W Personal Safety 77.66 30 W Ecosystem Sustainability 51.63 74 W Access to Advanced Education 89.47 1 S Homicide rate (1= <2/100,000; 5= >20/100,000) 2 41 W Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalents per GDP) 421.7 4 N Years of tertiary schooling 1.8 1 SLevel of violent crime (1=low; 5=high) 1 1 N Water withdrawals as a percentage of resources 2.9 85 W Women's average years in school 13.9 4 N

Perceived criminality (1=low; 5=high) 2 2 N Biodiv. and habitat (0=no protection; 100=high protection) 63.4 68 W

Inequality in the attainment of edu. (0=low; 1=high) 0.07 38 W

Political terror (1=low; 5=high) 3 80 W Number of globally ranked universities 181 1 STraffic deaths (deaths/100,000) 11.4 38 W Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Netherlands, Ireland,

Austria, United Arab Emirates, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Belgium, Iceland, Finland, and Norway

GDP per capita rank: 6/133

Social Progress Index rank: 16/133 Social Progress Index score: 82.85



Relative Weakness

Social Progress Index rank: 69/133GDP per capita rank: 5/133 SAUDI ARABIA

Score Rank Score Rank Score RankBASIC HUMAN NEEDS 82.87 47 W FOUNDATIONS OF WELLBEING 70.46 61 W OPPORTUNITY 39.49 107 W Nutrition and Basic Medical Care 97.32 52 W Access to Basic Knowledge 96.00 40 W Personal Rights 9.28 129 W Undernourishment (% of pop.) 5.0 1 N Adult literacy rate (% of pop. aged 15+) 94.7 71 W Political rights (1=full rights; 7=no rights) 7 125 WDepth of food deficit (cal./undernourished person) 10 50 N Primary school enrollment (% of children) 93.4 62 W Freedom of speech (0=low; 2=high) 0 103 WMaternal mortality rate (deaths/100,000 live births) 16 41 N Lower secondary school enrollment (% of children) 118.0 1 N

Freedom of assembly/association (0=low; 2=high) 0 95 W

Child mortality rate (deaths/1,000 live births) 15.5 64 W Upper secondary school enrollment (% of children) 110.4 1 N Freedom of movement (0=low; 4=high) 0 126 WDeaths from infectious diseases (deaths/100,000) 71.3 66 W Gender parity in secondary enrollment (girls/boys) 1.0 78 W Private property rights (0=none; 100=full) 40 51 W

Water and Sanitation 89.37 55 W Access to Information and Communications 66.45 77 W Personal Freedom and Choice 55.81 86 W

Access to piped water (% of pop.) 66.7 76 W Mobile telephone subscriptions (subscriptions/100 people) 176.5 1 N Freedom over life choices (% satisfied) 59.1 108 W

Rural access to improved water source (% of pop.) 97.0 46 W Internet users (% of pop.) 60.5 41 W Freedom of religion (1=low; 4=high) 1 117 WAccess to improved sanitation facilities (% of pop.) 100.0 1 N Press Freedom Index (0=most free; 100=least free) 58.3 125 W Early marriage (% of women aged 15-19) 0.04 38 W

Satisfied demand for contraception (% of women) 50.1 101 W

Corruption (0=high; 100=low) 49 40 W Shelter 75.44 47 W Health and Wellness 69.64 64 W Tolerance and Inclusion 45.64 84 W Availability of affordable housing (% satisfied) 35.0 101 W Life expectancy (years) 75.5 44 W Tolerance for immigrants (0=low; 100=high) 67.9 42 W

Access to electricity (% of pop.) 94.1 77 W Premature deaths from non-comm. diseases (prob. of dying) 16.7 45 W Tolerance for homosexuals (0=low; 100=high) n/a

Quality of electricity supply (1=low; 7=high) 6.2 21 W Obesity rate (% of pop.) 35.2 132 W Discrim. and viol. against minorities (0=low; 10=high) 7.7 100 W

Household air pollution attr. deaths (deaths/100,000) 10.7476 46 W

Outdoor air pollution attributable deaths (deaths/100,000) 31.5 73 W Religious tolerance (1=low; 4=high) 2 80 W

Suicide rate (deaths/100,000) 0.5 1 N Community safety net (0=low; 100=high) 84.3 56 W Personal Safety 69.34 47 W Ecosystem Sustainability 49.75 81 W Access to Advanced Education 47.24 65 W Homicide rate (1= <2/100,000; 5= >20/100,000) 1 1 N Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalents per GDP) 389.9 4 N Years of tertiary schooling 0.5 55 WLevel of violent crime (1=low; 5=high) 1 1 N Water withdrawals as a percentage of resources 5.0 129 W Women's average years in school 9.2 78 W

Perceived criminality (1=low; 5=high) 3 33 W Biodiv. and habitat (0=no protection; 100=high protection) 93.7 15 N

Inequality in the attainment of edu. (0=low; 1=high) n/a

Political terror (1=low; 5=high) 3 80 W Number of globally ranked universities 8 20 WTraffic deaths (deaths/100,000) 24.8 115 W United States, Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland,

Austria, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, United Arab Emirates, Australia, Canada, Belgium, Iceland, Finland, and France



Relative Weakness

THE SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX IN ACTION


APPLICATIONS: NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS

National Development Plan Assumptions:Economic Growth: 6.8% per yearSPI simulation uses targets set for 27 social & environmental indicators

• GDP per capita 2014: 5,289 SPI 2014: 62.65• GDP per capita 2030: 11,572 SPI 2030: 75.42

Paraguay 2030The first long term National Development Plan that places SPI alongside GDP has been approved in Paraguay in December 2014. As a first step, the 2015 national budget has sharply increased investments in housing, water and nutrition. Paraguay aims to reach the group of countries with high level of social progress by 2030.

PRY 2030


APPLICATIONS: SUBNATIONAL GOVERNMENTS

Municipality Social Progress Index

Basic Human Needs

Foundations of Wellbeing Opportunity

National Datapoint Brazil 67,73 71,60 70,42 61,18Best Municipality Amazon Palmas (TO) 71,86 74,95 71,41 69,22Best Municipality in Para Belém 70,20 73,41 71,73 65,47Average Municipality in Para Aurora do Pará 55,24 56,70 63,67 45,36Worst Municipality in Para Anapu 44,72 42,86 52,22 39,08Worst Municipality iAmazon Jordão (AC) 42,31 39,11 49,86 37,96

Pará 2020The Governor of the State of Pará has focused its four-year and 20 billion dollars investment plan on specific social progress priorities identified for the 95 municipalities of his State, in the first subnational report published in the Brazilian Amazon. "Whatever the project, we must imagine what its impact on social indices then think about how we can improve this project so it fosters social advances”, Simao Jatene.

State of Pará Population: 7,8 Million (75% urban)Life Expectancy: 73.3 yearsPoverty Rate: 36.8%GDP rank in Brazil:13th


APPLICATIONS: REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The European Commission is using the Social Progress Index to guide €60 billion in investments.

Directorate General of Regional and Urban Policy intends to broaden the scope of the Social Cohesion Policy - representing almost one third of the total EU budget - by providing sound, consistent and comparable data on social progress for 272 regions in the EU-28.

Contributing partners:


APPLICATIONS: CITIES

42

Building a historical picture of social progress in 10 major cities across Colombia to identify drivers of social progress and help build stronger urban development policies and strategies.

A collaboration with the Como Vamos network of cities throughout Latin America. • Bogotá

• Barranquilla • Bucaramanga • Cali • Cartagena

• Ibagué • Manizales • Medellín • Pereira • Valledupar

Total Population: 17,146,506


APPLICATIONS: CITIES

The first U.S. pilot will focus on four Michigan cities.

Partnership formally announced May 26-29 2015 at the 2015 Mackinac Policy Conference – a gathering of over 1700 business, community and government leaders driving policy strategies for Detroit’s redevelopment.


APPLICATIONS: BUSINESS

Coca-Cola and NaturaIn Carauari, one of the poorest communities in the Brazilian Amazon, Coca-Cola Brazil and Natura have developed a next generation social investment model. It uses micro data gathered and analyzed by IPSOS to identify key social progress priorities and implement a medium term land use planning endorsed by the community and supported by public institutions. Water is high on the social progress agenda for Carauari.

Community level Social Progress IndexWater and Sanitation Component (0-100)


GATHERING SOCIAL PROGRESS DATA

Data availability is key factor in creating Social Progress Indices.

Data must:

• be a reliable measure of the underlying concept;

• come from a reliable source;

• measure outcomes not inputs;

• be updated regularly (at least every 2-3 years)


GATHERING SOCIAL PROGRESS DATA

Potential data sources:

• National Statistical Agency (census or household budget survey);

• Other official statistics (e.g. Health Ministry, Ministry of Social Development)

• Expert assessments by universities or think tanks

• Survey data from commercial or nonprofit actors


SPI IS A TOOL FOR PRACTICAL ACTION BECAUSE IT COMPLEMENTS ECONOMIC MEASUREMENT


THANK YOU!

[email protected]

@shepleygreen

@socprogress


mailto:[email protected]

Presentation of the Social Progress Index at "Development in the Nonprofit Sector," Dhahran, Saudi...

News & Politics

Transcript of Presentation of the Social Progress Index at "Development in the Nonprofit Sector," Dhahran, Saudi...