How's Life? 2024

Reader’s guide

This guide provides information for readers on how to interpret the findings in this report as well as on changes made to the underlying indicator set since the previous edition of How’s Life? (2020[1]).

Conventions

• In each figure, data labelled “OECD” are simple mean averages of the OECD countries displayed, unless otherwise indicated. Whenever data are available for fewer than all 38 OECD countries, the number of countries included in the calculation is specified in the figure (e.g. OECD 33).

• A weighted OECD average (or OECD total) is shown in instances where the OECD convention is to provide this type of average. Where used, this is specified in the figure notes. For example, when data are population-weighted this is done according to the size of the population in different countries, as a proportion of the total OECD population. The OECD total treats the sum of all the OECD countries as a single entity, to which each country contributes proportionally.

• In analysis changes over time and trendlines, the OECD averages refer to only those countries with data available for every year shown, since the sample of countries needs to be held constant across all years. Since this means that only countries with a complete time series can be included, this can sometimes lead to different OECD averages for trendlines showing all years versus those showing only specific points in time (e.g. 2010, 2019 and the latest available year).

• Each figure specifies the time period covered, and figure notes provide further details when data refer to different years for different countries. Countries are denoted by their ISO3 codes (Table 1).

• While some OECD accession (Brazil) and partner countries (South Africa) are already included in the How’s Life? Well-being Database, other accession countries (Argentina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Indonesia, Peru and Romania) are still in the process of being systematically added. For this reason, and since this report focuses mainly on overall trends for the OECD average, accession and partner countries are not covered in this version of How’s Life?

Table 1. ISO3 codes for OECD countries

AUS	Australia	ISL	Iceland
AUT	Austria	ISR	Israel
BEL	Belgium	ITA	Italy
CAN	Canada	JPN	Japan
CHE	Switzerland	KOR	Korea
CHL	Chile	LTU	Lithuania
COL	Colombia	LUX	Luxembourg
CRI	Costa Rica	LVA	Latvia
CZE	Czechia	MEX	Mexico
DEU	Germany	NLD	Netherlands
DNK	Denmark	NOR	Norway
ESP	Spain	NZL	New Zealand
EST	Estonia	POL	Poland
FIN	Finland	PRT	Portugal
FRA	France	SVK	Slovak Republic
GBR	United Kingdom	SVN	Slovenia
GRC	Greece	SWE	Sweden
HUN	Hungary	TUR	Türkiye
IRL	Ireland	USA	United States

How’s Life? indicator dashboard

How’s Life? 2024 features the dashboard of the over 80 well-being indicators operationalising the OECD Well-being Framework, reflecting its 11 dimensions of current well-being and four types of capitals for future well-being. Data for each indicator are published and updated monthly (where possible) for all 38 OECD Member countries, accession countries and South Africa, with time series starting in 2004, via the How’s Life? Well-being Database (available online here: http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/fu). A detailed description of the entire indicator dashboard, alongside relevant metadata information, can be found here: https://www.oecd.org/wise/oecd-well-being-database-definitions.pdf.

Changes to the dashboard since 2020

The dashboard was last comprehensively updated in 2020, following a thorough review and stakeholder consultation (Exton and Fleischer, 2019[2]). Relative to How’s Life? 2020, this 2024 edition includes a few additional updates (Table 2). Five new indicators were added, in cases where new data that allow for international comparisons have now become available, and/or where they address topics that have increased in policy relevance (such as health, social connectedness, climate change or households’ ability to cope with inflation). Data collection at source has been discontinued for the indicator poor households without access to sanitary facilities, and consequently this has been removed from the dashboard. In two instances where indicators have not been updated since more than a decade, the source was changed to improve the timeliness of information (having a say in government and volunteering). Finally, the definition of the air pollution indicator has been adapted to reflect new international guidance.

Table 2. Changes to the How’s Life? indicator dashboard

Change	Indicator	Definition	Source	Rationale
Addition	Loneliness (social connections)	Percentage of the population feeling lonely most or all of the time in the past four weeks	European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) and other surveys conducted by National Statistical Offices	Loneliness is an important aspect of social connectedness and has gained increased policy attention since prevalence increased during COVID-19
Addition	Energy poverty (housing)	Percentage of households reporting they cannot afford to keep their dwelling adequately warm	European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC)	Feeling that one’s home is not adequately warm and energy poverty are well-being deprivations. While this indicator does not provide information about why a household cannot afford to keep the dwelling warm (e.g. financial difficulties, rising energy prices, issues with the building), monitoring it can provide useful indications about households’ experiences amidst the cost-of-living crisis and the green transition
Addition	Job satisfaction (work and job quality)	Mean average job satisfaction on a 0-10 scale, from 0 (not at all satisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied)	European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC)	Self-reported job satisfaction is an important (though not the only) component of job quality and complements objective measures such as earnings or long working hours
Addition	Exposure to extreme temperatures (environmental quality)	Percentage of the population exposed to hot days (maximum temperature > 35°C) for at least two weeks a year	OECD Exposure to Extreme Temperature Database	Exposure to extreme heat has documented impacts on health and other well-being outcomes, and is likely to increase in the face of climate change
Addition	Pain (subjective well-being)	Percentage of the population reporting experiencing a lot of physical pain the previous day	Gallup World Poll	Physical pain is a state associated not only with greater strains on the health care system, but also with an increased prevalence in mental health conditions. Given its importance for overall well-being, researchers in the field have called for pain to be given greater prominence in policy conversations, and they are encouraging governments to collect and publish relevant data
Removal	Poor households without access to sanitary facilities (housing)	Percentage of households below 50% of median equivalised disposable household income without indoor flushing toilet for the sole use of their household	OECD Affordable Housing Database, drawing on European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC)	This indicator has been discontinued in the source database since near universal access to sanitation has been achieved in European OECD countries
Change of source	Having a say in government (civic engagement)	Percentage of respondents with a score of >= 6, on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 10 (a great deal) when asked “How much would you say the political system in your country allows people like you to have a say in what the government does?”	OECD Trust Survey (previously: OECD Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC))	Since 2021, the OECD Trust Survey has been conducted every two years, which is expected to continue
Change of source	Volunteering (social capital)	Percentage of the population answering yes to the question “Have you done any of the following in the past month? How about volunteered your time at an organisation?”	Gallup World Poll (previously: OECD Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC))	The Gallup World Poll is conducted annually. The second wave of the OECD PIAAC survey will be released in December 2024, and it will be assessed then whether the source for the volunteering indicator will be switched back
Change of definition	Air pollution (environmental quality)	Percentage of the population exposed to PM2.5 above 5 micrograms/m3	OECD Exposure to Air Pollution Database	Following the newly updated World Health Organisation’s guidelines for air quality which recognise the increasing evidence that air pollution negatively impacts human health at even lower concentrations than previously understood, the threshold for harmful exposure has been lowered compared to previous editions of How’s Life (from 10 to 5 micrograms/m3)

Changes to the headline indicator set since 2020

As in How’s Life? 2020, Chapters 1 and 4 of this report rely on a set of headline indicators for more concise communication (11 headline indicators of current well-being average outcomes, 13 indicators of current well-being inequalities (Table 3) and 12 indicators of resources for future well-being (Table 4).

The headline indicators have been chosen from the extended dashboard to jointly satisfy conceptual and practical criteria to the best possible extent. These include balance across the components (average outcomes and inequalities across all dimensions) of the OECD Well-being Framework; use in other international and national well-being initiatives; policy relevance; and strong performance on statistical quality (i.e. many headlines act as broad summary indicators of their respective dimensions, cover the large majority of OECD countries and are more frequently collected and produced in a timelier manner than other indicators of the extended dashboard) (for more details on the criteria for headline indicator selection, see OECD (2020[1])).

The headline indicator set is evaluated against these criteria on an ongoing basis to reflect updated data availability for new topics or for a larger set of countries, or to swap headline indicators that have not been as frequently updated as expected. Relative to How’s Life? 2020, three headline indicators have been replaced:

• Within health, gap in life expectancy by education was replaced with fatalities from suicide, acute alcohol abuse and drug overdose (deaths of despair)

• Within environmental quality, access to green spaces was replaced with exposure to extreme temperatures

• Within natural capital, material footprint was replaced with renewable energy supply.

Table 3. Headline indicators for current well-being

Thematic cluster	Dimension	Indicator	Type
Material conditions	Income and wealth	Household income	Average outcome
		S80/S20 income share ratio	Inequality (vertical)
		Household wealth	Average outcome
	Work and job quality	Employment rate	Average outcome
		Gender wage gap	Inequality (horizontal)
		Long hours in paid work	Inequality (deprivation)
	Housing	Housing affordability	Average outcome
		Overcrowding rate	Inequality (deprivation)
Quality of life	Health	Life expectancy at birth	Average outcome
		Deaths of despair	Inequality (deprivation)
	Knowledge and skills	PISA score (maths)	Average outcome
		Students with low skills	Inequality (deprivation)
	Environmental quality	Air pollution	Inequality (deprivation)
		Exposure to extreme temperatures	Inequality (deprivation)
	Subjective well-being	Life satisfaction	Average outcome
		Negative affect balance	Inequality (deprivation)
	Safety	Homicides	Average outcome
		Gender gap in feeing safe	Inequality (horizontal)
Community relationships	Work-life balance	Time off	Average outcome
		Gender gap in total hours worked	Inequality (horizontal)
	Social connections	Social interactions	Average outcome
		Lack of social support	Inequality (deprivation)
	Civic engagement	Voter turnout	Average outcome
		Having no say in government	Inequality (deprivation)

Note: The distribution of current well-being is taken into account by looking at three types of inequality: gaps between population groups (horizontal inequalities); gaps between those at the top and those at the bottom of the achievement scale in each dimension (vertical

inequalities); and deprivations (i.e. the share of the population falling below a given threshold of achievement).

Table 4. Headline indicators for resources for future well-being

Capital	Indicator	Type
Natural capital	Greenhouse gas emissions per capita	Risk factor
	Renewable energy supply	Resilience factor
	Biodiversity (Red List Index of threatened species)	Stock
Social capital	Gender parity in politics	Resilience factor
	Trust in national government	Stock
	Trust in others	Stock
Economic capital	Financial net worth of government	Risk factor
	Household debt	Risk factor
	Produced fixed assets	Stock
Human capital	Premature mortality	Flow
	Labour underutilisation rate	Risk factor
	Educational attainment of young adults	Stock

Breakdowns considered in inequalities analyses

The education and age ranges considered in the inequalities sections throughout this report have been selected to maximise international comparability with what is readily available in aggregate statistics.

• Education ranges refer to the highest level of education completed.

  • In most cases, they correspond to ISCED levels 0-2 for “below upper secondary” level (i.e. less than primary, primary and lower secondary); 3-4 for “upper secondary” level (i.e. secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education); and 5-8 for “tertiary” level. For individual country-level mappings to the ISCED 2011 classifications, please see https://isced.uis.unesco.org/data-mapping/.

  • Indicators sourced from the Gallup World Poll correspond to: completed elementary education or less (up to eight years of basic education) for “primary” level; completed some secondary education up to three years tertiary education (9 to 15 years of education) for “secondary” level; and completed four years of education beyond “high school” and/or received a four-year college degree for “tertiary” level.

• The age ranges considered can differ between indicators and are detailed in the How’s Life? Well-being Database metadata information (available at https://www.oecd.org/wise/oecd-well-being-database-definitions.pdf).

Change over time

To identify the areas of well-being that call for closer monitoring and policy attention, it is essential to know with some degree of confidence whether an outcome is improving or worsening over time. How’s Life? 2024 assesses change over time as the simple point change between two periods (e.g. between 2010 and the latest available year). As in editions of How’s Life? since 2017, a country is classified as “improving”, “deteriorating” or showing “no clear change” in a specific area of well-being with reference to indicator-specific thresholds (Table 5, Table 6). This report uses terms like “clear”, “meaningful” or “significant” interchangeably throughout to refer to these classifications.

These thresholds take a number of factors into consideration, including the total magnitude of change observed among OECD countries, both in absolute unit values and in relative percentage change terms; the univariate distribution of values among OECD countries; the likely margin of error in the estimated values; and where possible standardisation of thresholds across similar data sources and types of indicators.

As an additional robustness check, the resulting classifications were compared with an alternative method to assess change over time, taking into account the consistency of movement over a period (using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient between an observed value and time expressed in years) rather than the magnitude of change. Results were largely consistent (for instance, considering the OECD average, classifications matched for 75% of headline indicators with available time series since 2010).

Table 5. Indicator-specific thresholds used to assess changes in current well-being

Indicator	Definition	Threshold
Income and wealth
Household income	Household net adjusted disposable income, measured in USD at 2021 Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) per capita	+/- USD 1 100
S80/S20 income share ratio	Ratio of average (equivalised) household disposable income of the top 20% of the income distribution to the average income of the bottom 20%	+/- 0.3 point
Household wealth	Household median net wealth per household, measured in USD at 2021 PPPs	+/- USD 11 000
Household net wealth of the top 10%	Percentage of household net wealth held by the 10% of wealthiest households	+/- 1 percentage point
Relative income poverty	Percentage of people with (equivalised) household disposable income below 50% of the national median	+/- 0.6 percentage point
Difficulty making ends meet	Percentage of the population who report having difficulty or great difficulty in making ends meet	+/- 1.5 percentage point
Financial insecurity	Percentage of individuals who are financially insecure (defined as people who are not currently income-poor, but who have liquid financial wealth below three months of the annual national relative income poverty line)	+/- 5.5 percentage points
Work and job quality
Employment rate	Employed people aged 25-64, as a percentage of the population of the same age	+/- 1 percentage point
Gender wage gap	Difference between male and female median wages, as a percentage of the male median wage	+/- 1 percentage point
Long-term unemployment rate	Percentage of the labour force unemployed for one year or more	+/- 0.2 percentage point
NEET	Percentage of youth (aged 15-24) not in employment, education or training	+/- 1 percentage point
Labour market insecurity	Average expected monetary loss associated with becoming and staying unemployed, as a share of previous earnings	+/- 0.3 percentage point
Job strain	Percentage of employees who experienced a number of job demands exceeding that of job resources	+/- 3 percentage points
Long hours in paid work	Percentage of employees usually working 50 hours or more every week	+/- 0.6 percentage point
Wages	Average annual wages per full-time employee, measured in USD at 2022 PPPs	+/- USD 1 100
Low wages	Percentage of full-time employees earning less than two-thirds of gross median earnings of all full-time employees	+/- 1.3 percentage point
P90/P10 ratio of wages	Ratio of full-time equivalent employees' earnings at the 90th percentile to earnings at the 10th percentile	+/- 0.1 point
Job satisfaction	Mean values for job satisfaction, reported on a 0-10 scale from 0 (not at all satisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied)	+/- 0.2 point
Low job satisfaction	Percentage of people reporting a score of 4 or below on a 0-10 scale for job satisfaction	+/- 0.5 percentage point
Vertical inequality in job satisfaction	Ratio of the score of the top 20% over the score of the bottom 20% for job satisfaction	+/- 0.1 point
Housing
Overcrowding rate	Percentage of households living in overcrowded conditions	+/- 1.5 percentage point
Housing affordability	Percentage of household gross adjusted disposable income remaining after deducting housing rents and maintenance	+/- 0.5 percentage point
Housing cost overburden	Percentage of households in the bottom 40% of the income distribution spending over 40% of their disposable income on housing costs	+/- 1.2 percentage point
Households with high-speed Internet access	Percentage of households with broadband Internet access at home	+/- 1 percentage point
Energy poverty	Percentage of households reporting they cannot afford to keep their dwelling adequately warm	+/- 1.5 percentage point
Health
Life expectancy at birth	Life expectancy at birth, measured in years	+/- 0.5 year
Perceived health	Percentage of the population aged 15 or over reporting “good” or “very good” health	+/- 3.5 percentage points
Deaths of despair	Combined deaths from suicide, acute alcohol abuse and drug overdose, measured per 100 000 population (age-standardised)	+/-1.9 deaths
Depressive symptoms	Percentage of the population 15 years or over reporting having experienced a range of depressive symptoms in the past two weeks	+/- 0.3 percentage point
Knowledge and skills
PISA score (maths)	PISA mean scores in mathematics of 15-year-old students	Based on OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) confidence intervals
PISA score (reading)	PISA mean scores in reading of 15-year-old students
PISA score (science)	PISA mean scores in science of 15-year-old students
Students with low skills	Share of 15-year-old students who score below Level 2 in mathematics, reading and science (i.e. all subjects combined)	+/- 3 percentage points
Environmental quality
Air pollution	Percentage of the population exposed to PM2.5 above 5 micrograms/m3	+/- 1.2 percentage point
Exposure to extreme temperatures	Percentage of the population exposed to hot days (maximum temperature > 35°C) for at least two weeks a year	+/- 2 percentage points
Subjective well-being
Life satisfaction	Mean values for life satisfaction, reported on a 0-10 scale from 0 (not at all satisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied)	+/- 0.2 point
Low life satisfaction	Percentage of people reporting a score of 4 or below on a 0-10 scale for life satisfaction	+/- 0.5 percentage point
Vertical inequality in life satisfaction	Ratio of the score of the top 20% over the score of the bottom 20% for life satisfaction	+/- 0.1 point
Negative affect balance	Percentage of the population reporting more negative than positive feelings and states in a typical day	+/- 3 percentage points
Worry	Percentage of the population who reported experiencing worry a lot the previous day	+/- 3 percentage points
Sadness	Percentage of the population who reported experiencing sadness a lot the previous day	+/- 3 percentage points
Enjoyment	Percentage of the population who reported experiencing enjoyment a lot the previous day	+/- 3 percentage points
Smile/Laugh	Percentage of the population who reported smiling or laughing a lot the previous day	+/- 3 percentage points
Pain	Percentage of the population reporting experiencing physical pain a lot the previous day	+/- 3 percentage points
Safety
Homicides	Deaths due to assault, age-standardised rate, per 100 000 population	+/- 0.3 death
Feeling safe at night	Percentage of people declaring that they feel safe when walking alone at night in the city or area where they live	+/- 3 percentage points
Road deaths	Road deaths, rate per 100 000 population	+/- 0.5 death
Work-life balance
Time off	Time allocated to leisure and personal care, hours per day, people in full-time employment	+/- 20 minutes
Satisfaction with time use	Mean values for satisfaction with time use, reported on a 0-10 scale from 0 (not at all satisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied)	+/- 0.2 point
Low satisfaction with time use	Percentage of people reporting a score of 4 or below on a 0-10 scale for satisfaction with time use	+/- 0.5 percentage point
Vertical inequality in satisfaction with time use	Ratio of the score of the top 20% over the score of the bottom 20% for satisfaction with time use	+/- 0.1 point
Social connections
Social support	Percentage of people reporting that they have relatives or friends they can count on to help them in times of trouble	+/- 3 percentage points
Social interactions	Time spent interacting with friends and family as primary activity, hours per week	+/- 20 minutes
Satisfaction with personal relationships	Mean values for satisfaction with personal relationships, reported on a 0-10 scale from 0 (not at all satisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied)	+/- 0.2 point
Low satisfaction with personal relationships	Percentage of people reporting a score of 4 or below on a 0-10 scale for satisfaction with personal relationship	+/- 0.5 percentage point
Loneliness	Percentage of people feeling lonely most or all of the time in the past four weeks	+/- 1.5 percentage point
Civic engagement
Voter turnout	Votes cast among the population registered to vote in major national elections	+/- 3 percentage points
Having a say in government	Percentage of respondents with a score of >= 6, on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 10 (a great deal) when asked, “How much would you say the political system in your country allows people like you to have a say in what the government does?”	+/- 3 percentage points

Note: The following indicators have not been included in this table due to insufficient time series to evaluate change over time: long unpaid working hours, gender gap in total hours worked, adult skills in numeracy and literacy.

Table 6. Indicator-specific thresholds used to assess changes in resources for future well-being

Indicator	Definition	Threshold
Natural capital
Greenhouse gas emissions per capita	Total greenhouse gas emissions from domestic production, excluding those from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), kilograms per capita, CO2 equivalent, thousands	+/- 0.5 kilograms, thousands
Renewable energy supply	Renewable energy, as a percentage of the total primary energy supply	+/- 2.5 percentage points
Biodiversity (Red List Index of threatened species)	Red List Index, where 1.0 = all species qualifying as “Least Concern”; 0 = all species having gone extinct	Any change different from zero
Protected areas (terrestrial)	Terrestrial protected areas, as a percentage of total land area	Any change different from zero
Protected areas (marine)	Marine protected areas, as a percentage of each country’s exclusive economic zone
Water stress (internal)	Annual gross abstraction rates, as a percentage of internal resources	+/- 1.5 percentage point
Water stress (total)	Annual gross abstraction rates, as a percentage of total renewable resources
Recycling rate	Municipal waste recycled or composted, as a percentage of all treated waste	+/- 2 percentage points
Loss/gain of natural and semi-natural land cover	Percentage of intensity of conversion to and from natural and semi-natural vegetated land	Any change different from zero
Intact forest landscapes	Intact forest landscapes, square kilometres
Carbon footprint	Carbon dioxide emissions embodied in final domestic demand, tonnes per capita	+/- 0.5 tonne
Material footprint	Used raw material extracted to meet the economy's final demand per capita, tonnes per capita	+/- 2 tonnes
Soil nutrient balance	Nutrient surplus (nitrogen), kilograms per hectare of agricultural land	+/- 5.5 kilograms
Social capital
Gender parity in politics	Percentage of women in national parliament, lower or single houses	+/- 2 percentage points
Trust in national government	Percentage of the population responding “yes” to a question about confidence in the national government	+/- 3 percentage points
Trust in others	Mean values for interpersonal trust, on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 10 (complete trust)	+/- 0.5 point
Low trust in others	Percentage of people reporting a score of 4 or below on a 0-10 scale for trust in others	+/- 0.5 percentage point
Government stakeholder engagement	Government stakeholder engagement when developing primary laws and subordinate regulations, 0 (no engagement) to 4 (maximum engagement) scale	Any change different from zero
Corruption	Corruption Perception Index, 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean) scale	Based on confidence intervals provided by Transparency International
Volunteering	Percentage of respondents who declared having volunteered through an organisation in the past month	+/- 3 percentage points
Economic capital
Financial net worth of government	Adjusted financial net worth of general government as a percentage of GDP	+/- 3 percentage points
Household debt	Household debt as a percentage of household net disposable income	+/- 10 percentage points
Produced fixed assets	Produced fixed assets, measured in USD per capita at 2015 PPPs	+/- USD 7 700
Intellectual property assets	Intellectual property assets, measured in USD per capita at 2015 PPPs	+/- USD 600
Gross fixed capital formation	Gross fixed capital formation, annual growth rates	+/- 1 percentage point
Investment in R&D	R&D investment as a percentage of GDP	+/- 0.2 percentage point
Financial net worth of the total economy	Financial net worth of the total economy, measured in USD per capita at current PPPs	+/- USD 5 300
Leverage ratio of monetary financial institutions	Ratio of selected financial assets to financial institutions’ own equity	+/- 3 points
Human capital
Premature mortality	Potential years of life lost due to a range of medical conditions and fatal accidents, per 100 000 population (age standardised)	+/- 350 years
Labour underutilisation rate	Percentage of unemployed, discouraged (persons not in the labour force who did not actively look for work during the past four weeks but who wish and are available to work) and underemployed (full-time workers working less than usual during the survey reference week for economic reasons and part-time workers who wanted but could not find full-time work) workers in the total labour force	+/- 1 percentage point
Educational attainment of young adults	Percentage of people aged 25-34 with at least an upper secondary education	+/- 1 percentage point
Smoking prevalence	Percentage of people aged 15 or over who report smoking tobacco every day	+/- 1 percentage point
Obesity prevalence	Percentage of the population aged 15 or older who is obese, as reported from health interview surveys or measured through health examinations	+/- 1 percentage point

Note: The following indicator has not been included in this table due to insufficient time series to evaluate change over time: trust in the police.

References

[2] Exton, C. and L. Fleischer (2019), The future of the How’s Life? dashboard, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/measuring-well-being-and-progress/The-Future-of-the-OECD-Well-being-Dashboard_2019.pdf.

[1] OECD (2020), How’s Life? 2020: Measuring Well-being, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9870c393-en.