Based on the previous sections, this final recommendatory part of the report seeks to identify and to discuss selected issues of social monitoring and reporting that are considered to be crucial for further improvements in this field and should thus be put on future research and policy agendas. This section draws heavily from a brainstorming session on “The State and Future of Social Moni- toring and Reporting in Europe: Suggestions for a Research and/or Policy Agenda” organized as part of the “e-Frame Workshop on Social Monitoring and Reporting in Europe”, in which several of the following issues and suggestions were identified and brought forward.18
Content
With a view to attracting public attention, not only in the realm of policy making, the content of social monitoring and reporting activities – in terms of comprehensiveness, pertinence and topi- cality – is certainly a key element. There is thus an urgent need to critically review the contents regularly and thoroughly in order to check for missing or underexposed domains and dimensions as well as the recognition of emerging new trends and problems. Apparently, there is a general challenge in keeping up with the times and in picking up pressing new themes and topics, while simultaneously also assuring comparability and continuity across time. Developing appropriate methodologies to be used as radar devices, allowing the identification of emerging societal trends and problems early on, would thus be desirable and useful in order to improve and ensure the pertinence and topicality of monitoring instruments and social reports.
Measurement, Data and Analysis
Other key elements affecting the quality and attractiveness of social monitoring and reporting ac- tivities include measurement approaches and the adequacy of indicators, data availability as well as modes and methods of analysis. In each of those fields improvements would be desirable. As far as indicators are concerned, there seems to be a need, for example, for developing improved measures of social capital, and as yet there are almost no valid and reliable indicators available allowing the measurement of the “resilience” of populations. While longitudinal data are impera- tive for capturing and studying individual level changes – e.g. moves into and out of poverty - there are still only few countries in Europe (e.g. Germany, Switzerland, UK) that dispose of long- lasting household panel studies. On the other hand, the availability of relevant data on well-being and quality of life has been considerably improved, particularly as far as pan-European cross- sectional survey data are concerned (Noll 2008).
18 For more information see http://www.gesis.org/en/social-indicators/products-of-the-zsi/european- social-monitoring-and-reporting/social-reporting-in-europe-european-social-reporting-network/
As far as the modes and methods of analysis are concerned, there obviously is a trade-off be- tween the degree of sophistication and comprehensiveness, which seems to be particularly rele- vant when it comes to social reporting activities, as social reports not only address experts, but also a broader public.
Use of Composite Indices
During the last couple of years we have seen a flourishing debate on the usefulness of composite indices for social monitoring and reporting. This debate is ongoing and continues to be controver- sial. Given the multi-dimensionality of concepts like well-being, sustainability or progress, there is obviously a demand for measures allowing a balance between the various developments in dif- ferent domains and dimensions of life and enabling uni-dimensional measurement of multidimen- sional phenomena. This demand seems to be greatest from a policy maker’s point of view, who not only look for possibilities to synthesize and reduce the complexity of information, but also demand clear-cut diagnostic findings and conclusions. In recent years numerous composite indi- ces – such as the "Human Development Index" or the "Better-Life-Index" – have been proposed to address this demand. Unfortunately, the advantages of composite indices do not come without costs (e.g. loss of information, over-simplification), and the construction of these measurements also faces many methodological difficulties, some of them not yet sufficiently solved.
The controversial debate about the benefits and limitations of using composite measures for so- cial monitoring purposes is thus expected to go on. Rather than debating the issue from a funda- mental point of view, it might be more prolific to discuss and to prove for which specific purposes and under which conditions composite indices might be used successfully.
Now- and Forecasting
Up to now, social monitoring and reporting activities are exclusively focused on current and past conditions. Retrospective views – usually based on time series data – enable the comparison of past conditions with the present situation and the determination of whether or not changes in in- dividual and societal life quality are to be considered as progress. There are good reasons for as- suming, however, that social monitoring and reporting activities might be enriched and become more attractive – particularly for policy makers – by eventually incorporating elements of social now-casting and forecasting and thus to enable prospective views as well. While now-casting re- fers to projections from the latest data available to “now”, forecasting refers to predictions of fu- ture developments. Methods allowing now-casting and forecasting in the fields covered by social
monitoring and reporting are apparently still in their beginnings, however19, and thus more re- search is needed on this account in years to come.
Well-being and Sustainable Development
Although this stocktaking report has covered issues of monitoring and reporting on sustainable development only partially, rather than comprehensively, it still reveals a need to better clarify the relationship as well as boundaries between approaches of social monitoring and reporting and approaches of monitoring and reporting on sustainable development. Currently, the respective activities do not seem to be well coordinated, which not only results in considerable overlaps, but sometimes even in duplication of efforts. Apparently, both approaches claim to some extent to cover the same subject – individual and societal well-being – although from different perspectives and with different emphases. In any case, it seems to be desirable and necessary to better coor- dinate social monitoring and reporting activities on the one side and activities of monitoring and reporting on sustainability in the future. To this end, it could be useful to create more opportuni- ties for debate and mutual exchange between the two communities, which up to now work more in parallel instead of collaborating with each other.
Harmonization versus Diversity
In an integrated Europe, increasingly growing together, efforts to harmonize activities in social monitoring and reporting seem to be essential. On the other hand, the diversity of social monitor- ing and reporting approaches currently existing at national and sub-national levels, expressing dif- ferences in traditions and cultures and allowing topics to be picked up and addressed in specific ways, is also considered of great value and worth preserving. It will thus become a great challenge in future years, to search for solutions to achieving better harmonization among the various ap- proaches without losing diversity and plurality. Generally, it seems to be important to achieve as much harmonization as necessary and to preserve as much diversity and plurality as possible.
Improving Usability and Continuity
While there is wide consent that comprehensiveness is of key value in social monitoring and re- porting, there are also good reasons to assume that there is a demand for tailor-made approaches and products addressing different groups of potential users, such as policy makers, the media, ex- perts in different fields and the general public – "one size/style fits all" strategies do not always seem to be the best solutions! As it appears, this issue has been rarely touched on up to now.
However, there are growing attempts at least to reach out to different groups of potential users, and to better meet their diverging needs through traditional print products, on the one hand, and web-based interactive tools, on the other. In line with these recent developments, further differ- entiations among the products and services offered may enhance the attractiveness of social monitoring and reporting activities for different categories of users.
Regarding social monitoring and reporting activities, not only is timeliness a concern, but also con- tinuity turns out to be essential. Assuring continuity seems to be easier in the framework of bu- reaucratic institutions like statistical offices and governments as well as supranational organiza- tions, but is not always guaranteed if social monitoring and reporting activities are hosted by sci- entific institutes, think tanks and NGOs. For the latter, the introduction of more permanent fund- ing mechanisms could be useful, to better ensure continuity over longer time periods.
Networking and Collaboration
Some of the issues raised here – e.g. harmonization vs. diversity, well-being and sustainable de- velopment – call for enhanced efforts in terms of networking and collaboration, which may not only help to better coordinate social monitoring and reporting activities across Europe, but also to improve mutual exchange, understanding and inspiration as well as learning from good practic- es.
To some extent these aims have already been served by a series of “Social Monitoring and Report- ing in Europe” conferences held at the Villa Vigoni (www.villavigoni.it) annually since 2006. The conferences – recently organized in collaboration with the European Commission – have brought together agents as well as users of social monitoring and reporting activities – researchers, statis- ticians and policy makers – from all over Europe, including delegates from supranational organiza- tions. Each of the conferences discusses issues of social monitoring and reporting of mutual inter- est and also addresses specific topics (http://www.gesis.org/en/social-indicators/products-of-the- zsi/european-social-monitoring-and-reporting/social-reporting-in-europe-european-social-
reporting-network/), as for example “The Quality of Society and Individual Quality of Life”, the theme of the 2014 conference. It would be highly desirable to ensure that this conference series is continued and eventually even extended in the years to come.
Moreover, in 2008 the informal European Social Reporting Network (ESRN) was founded by sev- eral protagonists from various European countries; it may be enhanced in future years and may serve as a basis for further networking activities.
References
Allardt, E. and the Research Group for Comparative Sociology (1972): The Scandinavian Welfare Survey 1972. Data Material, available at the Finnish Social Science Data Archive, Tampere.
Allardt, E. (1973): About Dimensions of Welfare. Research Group for Comparative Sociology. Re- search Report No. 1.
Atkinson, T.; Cantillion, B; Marlier, E.; Nolan, B. (2002) Social Indicators. The EU and Social Inclu- sion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bauer, R. A. (Ed.) (1966): Social Indicators. Cambridge, Mass./London: The M.I.T. Press.
Berger-Schmitt, R.; Jankowitsch, B. (1999): Systems of Social Indicators and Social Reporting: The State of the Art. EuReporting Working Paper No 1. Mannheim: Centre for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA), Social Indicators Department.
Bertrand, R. J. (1986/87): Les indicateurs sociaux. The Tocqueville Review, 8, pp. 211-233.
Bieber, U. 2013: Social Monitoring and Reporting – The Role of Governments. 8th Conference "Social Monitoring and Reporting in Europe", Villa Vigoni. Menaggio, 13.-15.03. 2013.
Boelhouwer, J. (2010): Wellbeing in the Netherlands. Den Haag: The Netherlands Institute for So- cial Research (SCP).
Boelhouwer, J. (2013): Social Monitoring and Reporting in Western and Central Europe. Expert Opinion, commissioned by GESIS.
Brown, B.; Corbett, T. (1997): Social Indicators and Public Policy in the Age of Devolution. Univer- sity of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty. Special Report No. 71.
Collicelli, C. (2013): Social Monitoring and Reporting in Southern Europe. Expert Opinion, commis- sioned by GESIS.
Delors, J. (1971): Les indicateurs sociaux. Paris: S.É.D.É.I.S.
European Commission (2009): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Euro- pean Parliament - GDP and beyond: measuring progress in a changing world. Available at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0433:FIN:EN:PDF
European Statistical System Committee (2011): Final Report on the Sponsorship Group on Meas- uring Progress, Well-being and Sustainable Development. Available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/pgp_ess/0_DOCS/estat/SpG_Final_report_P rogress_wellbeing_and_sustainable_deve.pdf
EUROSTAT (2013): Using EUROMOD to nowcast poverty risk in the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Giampietro, M.; Saltelli, A. (2014, forthcoming), Footprints to nowhere, Ecological Indicators. Gilomen, H., 1995: Towards a social reporting system in Switzerland. In: Economic Commission for Europe: Statistical Journal of the United Nations, pp. 319-327.
Habich, R.; Noll, H.-H. (1994): Soziale Indikatoren und Sozialberichterstattung. Internationale Er- fahrungen und gegenwärtiger Forschungsstand. Bern: Bundesamt für Statistik.
Hagerty, M. R. et al. (2001): ‚Quality of Life for National Policy: Review and Agenda for Research’. Social Indicators Research 55 (1), pp. 13-37.
Hicks, S. (2013): Social Monitoring and Reporting – The Role of Official Governments. 8th Confer- ence "Social Monitoring and Reporting in Europe", Villa Vigoni. Menaggio, 13.-15.03. 2013. Johansson, S. (1973): The level of living survey: a presentation. Acta Sociologica 16.3, pp. 211-219. Johansson, S. (1979): Mot en teori för social rapportering. Stockholm: Institutet för social for- skning.
Johansson, S. (2001): Conceptualizing and Measuring Quality of Life for National Policy. FIEF Working Paper Series, No. 171.
Johansson, S. (2002): Conceptualizing and measuring quality of life for national policy. Assessing Quality of Life and Living Conditions to Guide National Policy. Social Indicators Research Series Vol. 58, No. 1/3, pp. 13-32.
Land, K. (1983): Social Indicators. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, pp. 1-26.
MacRae, D. (1985): Policy Indicators: Links Between Social Science and Public Debate. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Ministry of Social Policy (2001): The Social Report 2001. Wellington, New Zealand.
Noll, Heinz-Herbert (1997): Sozialberichterstattung: Zielsetzungen, Funktionen und formen. In: Heinz-Herbert Noll (ed.), Sozialberichterstattung in Deutschland. Grundlagentexte Soziologie. Ju- venta Verlag: Weinheim / München, pp. 7-16.
Noll, H.-H. (1999): Die Perspektive der Sozialberichterstattung. In: P. Flora and H.-H. Noll (eds.), Sozialberichterstattung und Sozialstaatsbeobachtung. Frankfurt a.M., New York: Campus Verlag, pp. 13-28.
Noll, H.-H. (2002): Towards a European System of Social Indicators: Theoretical Framework and System Architecture. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 58, pp. 47-84.
Noll, H.-H. (2004): Social Indicators and Quality of Life Research: Background, Achievements and Current Trends. In: N. Genov (Ed.), Advances in Sociological Knowledge over Half a Century. Paris: International Social Science Council.
Noll, H.-H. (2008): European Survey Data: Rich Sources for Quality of Life Research. In: Møller, V.; Huschka, D.; Michalos, A.C. (Eds.): Barometers of Quality of Life Around the Globe. Social Indica- tors Research Series, Vol. 33. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1-21.
Noll, H.-H. (2011): The Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi-report: old wine in new skins? Views from a social indi- cators perspective. In: Social Indicators Research, 102/1, pp. 111-116.
Noll, H.-H. (2012): Social Monitoring and Reporting in Europe. e-Frame Project Kick off Meeting. Rome, 26-27.01.2012.
Noll, H.-H. (2014a): Systems of Social Indicators. In: Michalos, A. C. (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Quality of Life Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 6579-6582.
Noll, H.-H. (2014b): German System of Social Indicators. In: Michalos, A.C. (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 2541-2544.
Noll, H.-H. (2014c): German Welfare Survey. In: Michalos, A.C. (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 2544-2548.
Noll, H.-H.; Zapf, W. (1994): Social Indicators Research: Societal Monitoring and Social Reporting. In: I. Borg and P.Ph. Mohler. Eds. Trends and Perspectives in Empirical Social Research. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, pp. 1-16.
Nordic Council of Ministers (2013a): A Good Life in a Sustainable Nordic Region. Nordic Strategy for Sustainable Development. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
Nordic Council of Ministers (2013b): Nordic Sustainable Development Indicators 2013. Copenha- gen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
OECD (1982): The OECD List of Social Indicators. OECD Social Indicator Development Programme. Paris: OECD.
OECD (1986): Living Conditions in OECD Countries. A Compendium of Social Indicators. OECD So- cial Policy Studies No. 3.
Olson, M. (1969): Toward a social report. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington.
Rosenström, U. (2013): Social Monitoring and Reporting in the Northern Europe. Expert Opinion, commissioned by GESIS.
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009): Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris. Available at:
http://www.stiglitzsen-fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm
Suter, C.; Ravazzini, Laura (2013): Social Monitoring and Reporting: The Role of Academic Re- search and Think Tanks. Expert Opinion, commissioned by GESIS. Neuchatel.
UNECE/Eurostat/OECD Task Force on Measuring Sustainable Development (2013): Framework and suggested indicators to measure sustainable development. Available at:
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/publications/2013/CES_SD_web.pdf
United Nations (1975): Towards a System of Social and Demographic Statistics. Series F, No. 18. United Nations (1989): Handbook on Social Indicators (Series F, No. 49)
Uusitalo, H. (1994): Social Statistics and Social Reporting in the Nordic Countries. In: P. Flora, F. Kraus, H.-H. Noll and F. Rothenbacher. Eds. Social Statistics and Social Reporting in and for Eu- rope. Bonn: Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 99-120.
Vogel, J. (1991): Social Report for the Nordic Countries: Living Conditions and Inequality in the Late 1980's. Nordic Statistical Secretariat.
Wahl, S.; Schulte, M.; Butzmann, E. (2011): The Prosperity Quintett – Measuring Prosperity in Germany and other Early Industrialised Countries. Memorandum des Denkwerks Zukunft. Bonn: Denkwerk Zukunft – Stiftung kulturelle Erneuerung.
Zapf, W. (1979): Applied social reporting: A social indicators system for West German society. So- cial Indicators Research 6.4, pp. 397-419.