This chapter provides a high-level overview of how headline indicators of current well-being and resources for future well-being have developed at the country level since 2010. Results suggest that well-being inequalities between OECD countries are persistent, and that the relative well-being performance around a decade ago is largely still predictive of relative performance right now. Furthermore, positive trends in some dimensions do not necessarily translate across the board: uneven trajectories across headline indicators – where countries often improve in one area of well-being but stagnate or worsen in another – highlight the need for balanced strategies across policy areas.
How's Life? 2024
Well-being and Resilience in Times of Crisis
How's Life?
Abstract
Assessing well-being for the OECD as a whole is important to understand global societal trends. In order to inform national policy debates and country-specific reform agendas, this chapter documents the high-level “paths to well-being” that individual OECD countries have taken. To tease out more robust patterns, it focuses on how the headline indicators of the OECD Well-being Framework have developed in the medium term over the past decade. More detailed well-being statistics for each OECD country are available in the online country profiles accompanying this report.
The first section details, for each OECD country, whether outcomes across all areas of well-being have been improving or deteriorating since 2010. Positive developments in some aspects of life do not necessarily translate across the board and there is uneven growth across headline indicators, in that countries often improve in one area of well-being but stagnate or worsen in another. This affirms that multiple indicators are needed to comprehensively evaluate progress, and it highlights the need for balanced strategies across policy areas.
The next section assesses countries’ overall relative well-being performance across all headline indicators. On the one hand, results suggest that well-being inequalities between OECD countries are persistent, and that the relative well-being performance around a decade ago is largely still predictive of relative performance right now. On the other hand, there is also evidence of some path dependency between investing in sustainability and achieving higher levels of well-being later on: with some exceptions, the countries that are enjoying relatively high levels of current well-being in the present day are also the ones that performed comparatively strongly in resources for future well-being back in the early 2010s.
A focus on the OECD average can obscure different trends across countries. Thus, looking at the number of countries that have improved or declined in each area of well-being can help assess whether patterns have been consistent. The results show that, overall, trends have often diverged not only between countries but also between the different clusters of current well-being (material conditions, quality of life, community relationships) and the resources for future well-being (natural, economic, human and social capital).
Trends in current well-being since 2010, by country
Material conditions (relating to income, jobs and housing) have improved for the largest share of OECD countries relative to other areas of current well-being, compared to a decade ago (Figure 4.1, Panel A). For instance, the employment rate has improved in the medium-term in all but three OECD countries, and household income and the gender wage gap in in more than 28 out of 38 countries. Nevertheless, other indicators capturing material conditions, such as income inequality, household overcrowding and housing affordability improved in only up to 14 countries.
Over the same period of time, quality-of-life indicators have stagnated or deteriorated in most countries, with the exception of life expectancy (Figure 4.1, Panel B). For example, 2023 levels of exposure to outdoor air pollution and negative affect balance (i.e. the share of people experiencing more negative than positive feelings) were similar to their 2010 values for the majority of OECD countries. Concerningly, student skills have not improved in any OECD country – half of which experienced deterioration and half of which experienced stagnation both for scores in the PISA assessment of mathematics and for the share of students with low skills (i.e. students with below-average cognitive skills in science, mathematics and reading).
A true comparison between all areas of current well-being is being held back by a lack of data, and this is particularly so when it comes to community relationships (Figure 4.1, Panel C). Only two of the six headline indicators of community relationships, voter turnout and perceptions of social support, have data that is consistent enough to evaluate medium-term trends and both show diverging patterns – approximately equal shares of countries with available data either improved, stagnated or deteriorated since 2010. Data for the indicator of the share of people feeling they have no say in what the government does are available for 2021 and 2023 and thus allow only for an assessment of short-term trends for 19 OECD countries. Here as well the trends are diverging, with a slightly higher share of countries seeing a deterioration. This highlights the need for more frequent data collection across OECD countries, including time use surveys that supply information for half of the community relationship headlines.
Performance across headline indicators of current well-being, 2010 to 2023 or latest available year, per number of OECD countries
Note: Performance is classified by whether the cumulative change in an indicator is improving, deteriorating or showing no clear change with respect to indicator-specific thresholds (see the Reader’s Guide for more details). Insufficient data refers to indicators that are missing for a country or do not have the necessary time series to calculate trends over time. The latest year refers to the latest available year after 2019. Students with low skills refers to the change between 2018 and 2022. Having no say in the government refers to the change between 2021 and 2023.
Source: OECD calculations based on the OECD How’s Life? Well-being Database (n.d.[1]), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/fu.
Looking at trends for each country specifically underscores some of the trade-offs that are inherent in policy decisions. Indeed, not a single country has improved or deteriorated in all aspects of current well-being over the past decade (Figure 4.2).
Overall, 23 OECD countries experienced improvements in at least half of the material conditions headline indicators since 2010. Most of the countries that improved the largest share of these over the past decade tended to have comparatively weaker performance in 2010, and thus had room to grow. Czechia, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico and the Slovak Republic each consistently improved in six of the eight headline indicators for material conditions (Figure 4.2, Panel A). Except Luxembourg, these countries were found among the middle or lower performers for these indicators a decade ago. For instance, in 2010, Korea had worse outcomes than the OECD average for household income, income inequality, the employment rate and the gender wage gap, and Mexico was performing less well than other OECD countries in all material conditions headlines except the gender wage gap (OECD, n.d.[1]).
Fewer countries experienced improvements in non-material aspects of well-being over the past decade. Only two OECD countries, Estonia and Poland, have consistently improved in more than half of the quality-of-life headline indicators, while 19 countries, mostly in Europe and the Americas, have made progress in only up to two headline indicators (Figure 4.2, Panel B). This includes the United States, in which outcomes in headline indicators for material conditions had not worsened relative to 2010, but which deteriorated in four out of nine quality-of-life headlines with available data (homicides, deaths of despair, life expectancy and the share of people experiencing more negative than positive feelings) (Figure 4.2, Panels A and B). One country, Türkiye has seen very little progress when it comes to quality-of-life headlines. However, it was among the three OECD countries (alongside Hungary and the Slovak Republic) in which both of the community relationship headlines for which medium-term trends can be assessed – voter turnout and the share of people saying they have no friends or family to rely on in times of need – improved over the past decade (Figure 4.2, Panel C).1 In France, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom, all community relationship outcomes with available data deteriorated over their respective time periods.
Performance across headline indicators of current well-being, 2010 to 2023 or latest available year, by country
Note: Performance is classified by whether the cumulative change in an indicator is improving, deteriorating or showing no clear change with respect to indicator-specific thresholds (see the Reader’s Guide for more details). Insufficient data refers to indicators that are missing for a country or do not have the necessary time series to calculate trends over time. The latest year refers to the latest available year after 2019. Having no say in the government refers to the change between 2021 and 2023. Within material conditions, no country has sufficient data for household net wealth. Within community relationships, no country has sufficient data for time off, the gender gap in hours worked, and social interactions.
Source: OECD calculations based on the OECD How’s Life? Well-being Database (n.d.[1]), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/fu.
Trends in resources for future well-being since 2010, by country
Over the past decade, many OECD countries have taken steps to tackle climate change, and nearly 30 OECD countries have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions per capita and boosted the share of renewables in their energy mix (Figure 4.3, Panel A). Nevertheless, it is clear that these efforts are insufficient to date, and climate change is continuing to increasingly impact people’s lives (OECD, 2023[2]). One indication of this is that the situation in the majority of countries has worsened with respect to the third headline indicator of natural capital, which captures biodiversity risk via the Red List Index of threatened species. Here, only 11 countries improved their score, whereas outcomes have worsened in the 27 other countries over the past decade.
The vast majority of OECD countries (28 out of 30 countries with available data) improved their produced fixed assets per capita relative to 2010, and only one country (Greece, which was hit hard by the 2008 financial crisis) has deteriorated in this headline indicator of economic capital since then (Figure 4.3, Panel B). Trends between countries have been diverging for the other two headline indicators: the financial net worth of government worsened in more countries (20) than it improved in (14), and household debt has been improving, stagnating or deteriorating for almost equal shares of OECD countries over the past decade.
There have been broad gains in the headline indicators for human capital over the past decade that almost all OECD countries have shared in: both the percentage of adults with upper secondary education and the labour underutilisation rate have improved in 27 and 29 countries, respectively (Figure 4.3, Panel C).2 Premature mortality has more data gaps than other human capital headlines, which makes assessment of medium-term trends more difficult, but still the majority of OECD countries improved here when compared to 2010.
Performance across headline indicators of resource for future well-being, 2010 to 2023 or latest available year, per number of OECD countries
Note: Performance is classified by whether the cumulative change in an indicator is improving, deteriorating or showing no clear change with respect to indicator-specific thresholds (see the Reader’s Guide for more details). Insufficient data refers to indicators that are missing for a country or do not have the necessary time series to calculate trends over time. The latest year refers to the latest available year after 2019.
Source: OECD calculations based on the OECD How’s Life? Well-being Database (n.d.[1]), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/fu.
As for natural and economic capital, trends in social capital are also mixed depending on the indicator considered. Almost all OECD countries haven taken strides towards gender parity in politics, with the share of women in national parliament having increased in 35 OECD countries over the past decade (Figure 4.3, Panel D). The trajectories for trust in national government are much more mixed, with 15 OECD countries having improved since 2010 and 14 countries having deteriorated. Trust in other people, which is available mostly for European OECD countries, has broadly remained stable for the majority of countries.
Policy trade-offs are also visible when examining trends in resources for future well-being at the national level. As with current well-being outcomes, not a single country has improved in all headline indicators for future well-being over the past decade (Figure 4.4). However, two countries – Ireland and Hungary – managed to avoid deterioration in any of the headlines across natural, economic, human and social capital.
While the majority of OECD countries have improved in two of the three headline indicators for natural capital over the past decade, as countries strive to achieve sustainability targets, three countries (Costa Rica, Chile and Mexico) achieved no progress in any of the natural capital indicators for which they had data available (i.e. renewable energy and the Red List Index of threatened species) (Figure 4.4, Panel A). These countries were however already performing better than other OECD countries in most of these indicators in 2010.
Conversely, half of OECD countries improved in at least one headline indicator of economic capital while simultaneously deteriorating in another (Figure 4.4, Panel B). Only five of the countries with available data, most of them eastern European and Nordic states, improved in all three headline indicators of economic capital.
It is in the domain of human capital that progress has been the most consistent over the past decade in comparison with other resources for future well-being. Almost one-third of OECD countries have improved in all three of the headline indicators, and only seven countries have experienced any deterioration at all (Figure 4.4, Panel C). These were Czechia and Germany (in which the share of young adults with upper secondary education decreased compared to 2010), Greece, Italy and Türkiye (in which the labour underutilisation rate rose), and Mexico and the United States (in which premature mortality rose over this period) (OECD, n.d.[1]).
Sixteen out of 38 OECD countries have seen improvements in at least two of the three headline indicators for social capital over the past decade (Figure 4.4, Panel D). In most cases, these were gender parity in politics and trust in government, except for Italy and Poland in which levels of trust in government today were similar to those of a decade ago, but in which trust in others improved instead (OECD, n.d.[1]). Türkiye is the only country in which two out of three social capital headlines worsened, as both trust in others and trust in the government deteriorated relative to around 2010.
Performance across headline indicators of future well-being, 2010 to 2023 or latest available year, by country
Note: Performance is classified by whether the cumulative change in an indicator is improving, deteriorating or showing no clear change with respect to indicator-specific thresholds (see the Reader’s Guide for more details). Insufficient data refers to indicators that are missing for a country or do not have the necessary time series to calculate trends over time. The latest year refers to the latest available year after 2019.
Source: OECD calculations based on the OECD How’s Life? Well-being Database (n.d.[1]), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/fu.
Considering the overall aggregate performance in current well-being between 2010 and 2023, most OECD countries find themselves at broadly similar levels, relative to other countries, as around a decade ago. Indeed, for the most part, the countries in which people enjoyed comparatively high levels of current well-being in 2010 are still among the highest performers today across all 24 headline indicators considered (Figure 4.5, Panel A). These include most Nordic countries and the Netherlands, which all had comparative performances that were similarly strong in both 2010 and 2023. On the other hand, people in many of the OECD countries that were faring comparatively less well in 2010 are still experiencing relatively lower levels of well-being. This includes several countries in Latin American and in eastern Europe.
Nevertheless, several OECD countries have moved up the rankings since 2010, falling to the left of the trend line in Figure 4.5, Panel A. These include Estonia, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Slovenia and Poland, where above-average rates of progress across the 24 headline indicators of current well-being has been observed since 2010. Conversely, some countries’ present-day aggregate current well-being is lower, relative to other countries, than it was a decade ago. Italy and Türkiye have lost ground since 2010.
Comparative aggregate performance in current well-being and resources for future well-being, 2010 or earliest vs. 2023 or latest available year
Note: Relative performance is classified using min-max normalisation for the 36 headline indicators (see Reader’s Guide for further details) with respect to the values for 2010 or the earliest available year. Higher numbers imply higher comparative well-being. The normalised value is first calculated across all countries with data available for the indicators. It is then averaged for each country within well-being dimensions to ensure equal weights for each dimension. Next, the value is averaged across all dimensions to calculate the country’s overall performance score. The earliest year refers to the earliest available year for the respective indicator at or before 2015, except for having no say in the government which refers to 2021. The latest year refers to the latest available year after 2019. The adjusted r-squared value for the bivariate analysis in Panel A is 0.76 and 0.71 in Panel B. Missing indicators are excluded from each country’s score, implying that scores may be under- or over-estimated in the case of data gaps.
Source: OECD calculations based on the OECD How’s Life? Well-being Database (n.d.[1]), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/fu.
Countries’ comparative aggregate performance across all 12 headline indicators of resources for future well-being shows a similar pattern for the most part (Figure 4.5, Panel B), indicating that there may be some path dependency. Basic correlations suggest some co-dependency: OECD countries with strong comparative performance in resources for future well-being in the early 2010s also had comparatively high levels of current well-being in 2023, and vice versa (Figure 4.6). Regardless, just under one-half of OECD countries fall inside of this trend. For example, Costa Rica, Latvia and the Slovak Republic have weaker current well-being outcomes today, relative to other countries, despite their comparatively higher performance in resources for well-being in a decade ago. On the flip side, current well-being in Australia, Estonia, Iceland and Ireland is comparatively high today, despite a weaker showing in resources for well-being in 2010. Future work to disentangle how and under which time horizon the stocks and flows of economic, natural, human and social capital combine to produce current well-being outcomes, and to understand which other factors might be at play, will be key to a better understanding of this relationship (OECD, 2020[3]).
Comparative aggregate performance in current well-being, 2023 or latest available year vs. resources for future well-being, 2010 or earliest available year
Note: Relative performance is classified using min-max normalisation for the 36 headline indicators (see Reader’s Guide for further details). Higher numbers imply higher comparative well-being. The normalised value is first calculated across all countries with data available for the indicators. It is then averaged for each country within well-being dimensions to ensure equal weights for each dimension. Next, the value is averaged across all dimensions to calculate the country’s overall performance score. The earliest year refers to the earliest available year for the respective indicator at or before 2015, except for having no say in the government which refers to 2021. The latest year refers to the latest available year after 2019. The adjusted r-squared value for the bivariate analysis is 0.45. Missing indicators are excluded from each country’s score, implying that scores may be under- or over-estimated in the case of data gaps.
Source: OECD calculations based on the OECD How’s Life? Well-being Database (n.d.[1]), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/fu.
References
[2] OECD (2023), Environment at a Glance Indicators, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/ac4b8b89-en.
[3] OECD (2020), How’s Life? 2020 - Measuring Well-being, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9870c393-en.
[1] OECD (n.d.), How’s Life? Well-being Database, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/fu (accessed on 3 May 2024).
← 1. The third headline indicator for community relationships, having no say in the government, only assesses short-term change from 2021-2023.
← 2. Most of the eight countries in which the upper secondary education stagnated over the past decade were mostly already at the top end of performance, with all but two being above the OECD’s latest average of 86.2%.