To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
A peek at Island life in the international pecking order
Share this:
By Peter Body
I MUST be taking life too seriously, because I’ve become quite angry just reading a load of statistics.
The statistics I am referring to are contained in the Better Life Index published recently by the Statistics Unit. The index looks at all the various factors which contribute to the well-being of Islanders and provides an alternative method for measuring progress. Economic growth and gross domestic product will continue to be important yardsticks, but well-being is not just about economics.
Unfortunately, it is by no means certain that the index will have any immediate impact. Despite all the hard work that has gone into compiling it, it could be ignored, which is often the way in Jersey.
However, as the index is expanded and refined, so it should prove more valuable as a tool to assess whether our government is helping us to meet our aspirations. That’s why I got so annoyed while looking at the first edition of the index.
It shows graphically that despite regularly patting ourselves on the back about our wonderful life in Jersey, we are falling behind in some very important areas.
Jersey’s Better Life Index is based on the work of the OECD, so it enables comparisons to be made with that organisation’s 36 members.
There are bound to be statistical quirks when trying to compare a small Island with major countries, the smallest of which is Luxembourg with a population of 520,000, but the index contains a huge amount of data about Jersey, much of which is new or is presented in a more compelling way.
It shows that Jersey should be justifiably proud of many aspects of Island life, particularly the size of household incomes, the level of personal security and the availability of strong social support networks. Although it’s not meant to be purely a league table, the Island comes out at the very top of the OECD in all these categories.
It’s where the index shows that the Island has been less successful that concerns me. I got angry because I think it shows how government policies are skewed in the wrong direction. We appear to be putting money and effort into areas which don’t desperately need it, while ignoring other aspects of well-being that do need it.
You can’t blame the current government because they didn’t have the advantage of using the Better Life Index when they came to draw up their strategy and business plans. But I would be disappointed if they didn’t take the statistical findings on board when they come to review the strategic plan.
For example, my reading of the index leads me to believe that there’s not much need to be ploughing many more millions into housing. Jersey already comes out in eighth place among OECD members (although of course it’s not a member in its own right).
There is less overcrowding than in most countries, and housing costs as a proportion of household net disposable income are lower than every OECD member (including the UK) except Belgium, Slovenia, Spain, the United States, Mexico, Norway, Portugal, Korea and Russia. A high proportion (93%) of adults in Jersey are also ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ satisfied with their current housing.
So housing might require some investment and attention, but perhaps it’s not at the crisis point that some in the Council of Ministers seem to believe.
However, my blood pressure really reached crisis levels when I looked at where the Better Life Index assessed education in Jersey. The answer is pretty poorly, yet this is an area targeted for cuts and savings by the Council of Ministers.
So the education dimension in the index puts Jersey’s education system at 30th among OECD members. Only six countries were rated lower in the education category.
We compare favourably with the UK, which we always tend to look up to and copy, but unfortunately the UK is slipping behind jurisdictions such as the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic and Japan, where 90% of adults have attained upper-secondary qualifications, compared to Jersey’s 76%.
I had strong suspicions before, but the Better Life Index shows that we are not taking education seriously enough, and that’s important not just for personal attainment but the future of the whole economy. Let’s hope the Council of Ministers take note.
Of course, the only category where we did even worse was in civic engagement, where we came bottom of the OECD league table. This was due to the appallingly low turn-out at elections, which the current fuss about a referendum is supposed to improve. I doubt it will, but at least we are trying and the Better Life Index graphically illustrates how much we need to try.
There’s a whole host of other statistics contained in the index which help to point us towards what we need to do to improve the well-being of Islanders. For example, average incomes in Jersey may be high compared with many other OECD members, but income inequality is a serious problem. The highest incidence of inequality in the OECD is in Chile, followed by Mexico, then Turkey, the US (which is rather embarrassing), Israel and Portugal. Jersey is seventh-worst, and comes just behind the UK.
My business critics would never forgive me if I failed to point out another factor obvious from the index. The Scandinavian countries come consistently higher in virtually every category compared to Jersey and the UK. Norway is ranked highest of all. These are all highly taxed countries, so the index tends to support the belief that low taxes do not necessarily mean better lives.
Of course that shouldn’t be an excuse for opening the floodgates and increasing taxes in Jersey, but it’s something that should be born in mind when our well-known business commentators bang on about low taxes being the be-all and end-all. Producing a little bit more income might help us to invest in education, for example.
If we don’t, then future editions of the Better Life Index will show us slipping down the international tables and becoming less competitive. But at least we will have been warned.
Related