Ettekanne käsitleb töötuskindlustuse skeemi väljatöötamist ning rakendamist, kasutades integreeritud poliitika tsüklite ning sotsiaalsete indikaatorite funktsioonide ja tüüpide teooriaid. Uurimistöö annab esialgset hinnangut (konkreetse case´i alusel) sellele, kas poliitika kujundajad kasutavad sotsiaalseid indikaatoreid, kui palju kasutavad (millistel poliitikakujundamise tsükli etappidel) ning millest võiks sõltuda indikaatorite tõhusam kasutamine sotsiaalpoliitika väljatöötamises Eestis.

 

Uses of Social Indicators in Political Decision-Making Process:

Unemployment Insurance Scheme

 

In the governmental structures, when dealing with decision-making in the sphere of social policy it is difficult to find a structure without a social statistics department or division. Since the middle of the 19^th century, almost all present-day democracies and all international organizations began to collect social statistics (Cobb and Rixford 1998). Social statistics are implemented by politicians, researchers as well as by practitioners of different occupational spheres. The collection, interpretation and publishing of the reports are resource-demanding activities for almost all countries in the world and some of the international organizations (UN, OECD, World Bank, EU). There are plenty of books and social statistics reports issued every year in Estonia. Complicated and ramified structures have been created in order to collect and interpret data (e.g. EUROSTAT). The development and research of social indicators is one of the most important components in the business of social statistics.

 

Since 1993,[1] for more than ten years the Estonian Ministry of Social Affairs and other governmental and municipal organizations have been dealing with the reformation of the system of social policy to integrate and adjust to the common European area. Reforms have affected almost all spheres of social life, starting from medical care, labor market policies and social security schemes. In the political discussions, different arguments have been used, including those based on social statistics and indicators. What is the actual role of social indicators in the policy-making process during the stages of preparation, assessment and implementation of political decisions? On what stages of policy-making process could indicators successfully intervene? Has the implementation of social indicators been optimal, “whether the governmental actions are effective in altering social outcomes” (Society at a Glance: OECD Social Indicators 2001:9)? If not, what could be done in order to integrate social indicators more into the process of decision-making on the level of governmental structures?

 

The aim of the present paper is to present the result of the case-study of the policy-making on the implementation of the unemployment insurance scheme in Estonia. The case-study gives a preliminary ground for future research in the field of the uses of social statistics and indicators in the social policy decision-making process. The results of the case study with some limitations could be interesting also for analysis of policy-making in the spheres of education, science and other internal policies.

 

During the research work I tried to check to which extend the “ideal” model (combines the stages of policy cycle, roles of indicators and policy actors) works in the Estonian context of policy-making and tried to formulate the main peculiarities of the implementation of social indicators in the decision-making process. For that purpose it is important I observed, what indicators are mostly used, what the bases for decision-making are, who are the main actors of decision-making process and what are their main argumentations in the negotiations on social-political issue. 

 

Methods of Research

The case-study research was carried out in spring 2004. As the main method of the research I used interviewing, additionally I referred to context analysis of the articles in newspapers and verbatim records of the Riigikogu sessions. The reasons for selecting of the qualitative semi-structured interview method of data collection is that it allows to follow an interview schedule, and at the same time, to react on the emerging issues during the interview (which corresponds to the peculiarities of the topic mentioned above). The interview questions involved different spheres of political science, statistics and public administration. I tried to ensure that all possible policy cycle actors were present (interest groups, public officials from the Ministry of Social Affairs or other public sector organizations, total 7 respondents).

 

In the analysis, I made a difference between four categories of information: background information, behaviour/experience, knowledge and opinion/value (Patton 1990:291-293).

Additionally I classified the information into six categories, which corresponded to the six stages of the policy-making.  For each stage of the policy-making I determined the time-period, the most important event or decision taken, the main actors, their positions in the negotiations and argumentations they used, including statistical data and social indicators.

 

Uses of Social Indicators in Policy-making Process: Theoretical Background

 

Social indicators are part of social statistics, “which, however, differ from normal statistics by several characteristics: they should refer to individual welfare and not to bureaucratic activities; they should inform about change, i.e., they should be presented as time series; they should be formulated within a theoretical context” (Zapf 2002:6). Very often statistical units of social indicators are “individuals and households, aggregated into groups” (Vogel 1994). 

 

In order to understand the possible usage of social indicators, we should keep in mind that almost all measurements (especially subjective, qualitative indicators) are “proxies – indirect measures of true conditions we would like to judge” (Cobb 2000: 5). Cobb compares social indicators, which aim to measure the quality of life or welfare, with the Plato’s cave metaphor, when a person can see only the shadows on the back of the cave, and never can get direct access to the truth.

 

It is possible to distinguish different target groups – “consumers” of the social indicators. Almost all international and local organizations, which deal with the collection, interpretation and dissemination of social statistics, name the researchers and policy makers as the main target groups for statistical publications (UNESCO, OECD, Statistical Office of Estonia etc). A broader spectre of statistics consumers includes statisticians, governments, international organizations, researchers, enterprises, employers and investors.

 

For the purpose of the present paper, I have chosen a theoretical model presented by OECD. OECD (Society at a Glance: OECD Social Indicators 2001) proclaims that there are two possible tasks of the social statistics: firstly, it can serve as a reflection of various dimensions of social life; secondly, social indicator is a tool for comparison of “the changes in social outcomes within the extent of social policies”. Social indicators can be used to assess “how the broad thrust of policy addresses important social issues”. The indicators can serve as an impact, as incitement for inclusion of certain problematic questions into political agenda. (Society at a Glance: OECD Social Indicators 2001:9) For the development of social indicators OECD (Society at a Glance: OECD Social Indicators 2001:10) I has borrowed the idea of using a “Pressure-State-Response” model, which could be useful for understanding of the role and kind of social indicators in use during the political decision-making:

 

“Pressure” types of indicators show certain negative societal changes or results of social events that can lead to some changes in the society. For example because of social catastrophe in the neighbour state, a number of asylum seekers can increase. In that case, the number of asylum seekers is considered as “pressure” type of indicators, which can play a role of impetus or signal for policy-makers.

 

“Social state” indicators show concrete changes, which took place in the society because of emergence of “pressure” type indicators. For example, large number of migrants could provoke poverty or unemployment. The role of the indicators could be defined as one that shows the consequences of interaction between the “pressure” type of indicators and political measures taken to overcome difficult situation (societal/political response type of indicators).

 

“Societal/ political response” indicators measure the level of intervention into unfavourable situation or actions of the government (e.g. level of unemployment benefits, number of hospital beds etc).

 

As a working concept of the policy-making process I choose the definition and classical theory developed by Anderson (1994), according to which public policy-making is a complex process of political decision-making, which results in the formulation of the state legislation or state action plan for regulation of a concrete sphere of public policy or for dealing with a public problem.[2] The relevant issue to the selection of the subject of an analysis is that “public policy is action implemented by the government body which has the legislative, political and financial authority to do so” (Young and Quinn 2002:5). The decision of the government body to do nothing is also considered to be public policy decision (Heidenheimer, Heclo and Adams 1995). Public policy actors are diverse and could include different interest groups (non-governmental and community groups), stakeholders, governmental agencies, policy advisers and think tanks (Young and Quinn 2002). Each of these groups has its own relation to the government body, responsible for taking a decision in a special area.

 

Issue of social indicators in the policy-making process could be as much complicated as policy-making itself. It could be assumed that different kinds of social indicators (objective, subjective, qualitative and quantitative) could be implemented by different public policy actors. Non-governmental organizations or community groups could tend to use more subjective and qualitative data as argumentations of their positions. Large think tanks and policy analysts could probably refer to social statistics, quantitative and objective methods of analysis that depict general trends. International organizations and global agencies (such as UN, World Bank and OECD) have their own aims in the policy-making process, which take the shape of reports, policy prescriptions and reviews (Simpura (ed) 1995). Social indicators are possibly used as argumentation for policy prescriptions.

 

In order to summarize and streamline the analysis of the possible role of social indicators in the decision-making process, I refer to classical representation of policy-making process as six different stages organized into a cycle or spiral – policy cycle[3]  (Figure 1). For the purpose of summarizing different theoretical approaches in public policy-making, classification of indicators according to the roles and types (OECD (Society at a Glance: OECD Social Indicators 2001) model etc) I constructed a scheme, which could serve as a hypothesised model for further research (Figure 2). This model could be named “ideal” model of types and roles of indicators (formulated according to the theoretical knowledge). The roles and types of indicators could vary from case to case and depend on the structural and cultural peculiarities of the analysed organization. “The use, non-use and misuse of what are thought to be relevant information is governed by a complex set of relations which renders a simple input-output proposition untenable” (Verwayen 1984:20). Deflections from the “ideal” model are possible due to the eroded borders and interactivity of the stages of policy cycle and due to the peculiarities of the public policy decision-making models in use (e.g. demographic, incrementalism, rational choice theory, collective choice theory etc (Peters 1986).

 

Uses of Social Indicators in the Case of Unemployment Insurance Scheme

 

Very often, the use of indicators on the stage of policy design in the policy cycle is difficult to trace because of abundance of interrelations between both subjective, objective pieces of information, intercommunications between interest groups and other factors. At the “macro-level” of decision-making (on important policy issues) “the final policy decision is likely to depend upon an appraisal of scientific (hard) and extra-scientific (soft) knowledge from a variety of sources” (Caplan, 1981:12-13, cited in Verwayen 1984:20).

 

Judith Innes de Neufville (1975) summarizes the main principle of the usage of indicators in the decision-making process. In her opinion, social indicators are the most useful if they are chosen and designed deliberately and based on the best concepts and theories existed on the social processes under evaluation. The indicators should be designed and used in interaction with the interests and views of the participants in planning. The role of social scientists should also be significant in order to interpret the data according to the social theories (Neufville 1975). The implementation of the ideal situation described by Neufville and the application of the hypothesised model presented above require existence of concrete settings in the administrative and political system of the state.

 

The peculiarity of Estonian public administration and political system could lie in its “smallness”. Estonia is considered as a “small state” or “small society”, though our administrative system is rooted and closely connected to the Western administrative practices. “Compared with the governments of larger nations, those of small states have to deal with qualitatively less heterogeneous societies” (Kersell 1992: 290). In the political system, persons are more important, policy process is personalized. Both in political and administrative systems the development and decisions are often not related to social and economic planning (Kersell 1992). Anonymity and impersonality are impossible (Benedict 1966). The difference between the theory and reality in the decision-making is significant. In a small state, it is almost impossible to guarantee the “rationality” of the state and political decision-making. Social statistics and indicators are rational arguments. Their design and institutionalization require not only human, but also financial resources, which usually are insufficient in a small society. At the same time, there are a number of positive features, which also influence the decision-making. Both politicians and senior administrators have more contacts that are direct with the man from the street. Because of that, they could operate with qualitative data and the principal decisions taken are based on personal experience (Sutton 1987).

 

The model constructed as a “symbiosis” of theoretical knowledge on social indicators and policy-making cycle (stage by stage) proved to be partly working in the case of unemployment insurance. The perception of the time scale of the policy-making process was quite different. Nevertheless, all the respondents named the same key-points and most important decisions taken during the policy formulation. In general, the following features characterized the process of decision-making:

• lack of fierce and intense debates;
• lack of opposite positions on the issues under discussion;
• cooperation and aspiration for compromises between different participants in the decision-making (i.e. an agreement between the trade union and employers);
• similar rhetorical and content-based arguments;
• no alternative sources of social indicators or statistics (except for the trade union).

For the problem definition, almost all the participants of policy-making process used content-based and rhetorical arguments, attracting the attention of a wider public. The stages of policy formulation and choice of solutions seemed to be quite different from the “ideal model”. There were not many quantitative and objective indicators used in order to choose the most effective and suitable way of problem decision. Instead of that, all the participants without significant negotiations or presentation of alternative proposals have accepted the model of unemployment insurance. The main argument in the negotiations was the experience of other European countries and international obligations fixed in the European Social Charta and European Social Security Law Codex. During the stages of policy design and implementation most of the indicators used were of “state” and “response” type. “Pressure” type indicators were not used at all. The absence of one type of indicators did not allow to carry out the full social analysis of the situation and to investigate the possible and real influence of the unemployment insurance on the cause of the unemployment problem, the impact on the problematic situation both on macro and micro level (i.e. by qualitative, subjective researches). The most important decisions on complex issues - which in an “ideal situation” should require complex and multiple analysis - were taken on political level, based on rhetorical, subjective arguments.

 

Social Indicators in Estonian Policy-making: Challenges and Opportunities

 

The aim of the present section is to give floor to presenting the results of the discussion and personal considerations on the issue of the usage of social indicators in Estonia. The ideas presented could look like as speculative and subjective… Nevertheless, they could serve as a basis or hypothesis for further research of the problem. Structurally the section is divided into several topics depicting the most vital aspects of the usage of social indicators in policy-making and the theoretical background presented in the paper.

 

Place of social indicators in the policy-making process – integrated model

 

The role of social indicators in the policy-making process could be described as a scheme, where policy actors are seen as “consumers” of social statistics (including social indicators); international agencies (like ILO, EU etc) – as “outside (beyond the state) players”, which also collect and consume national statistics and influence decision-making process by setting their priorities and issuing guidelines for development (often included into state action plan or national priorities) (Figure 3).

 

 

Figure 3. The Role of social statistics in the policy-making process through interaction with policy actors and international organizations.

 

In the case of unemployment insurance scheme the integrated model presented above proved to be correct. The role of international organizations seems to be quite significant, especially on the stages of policy design and policy formulation.

 

“Good decision-making is informed decision-making… ”

 

Notwithstanding the assumption, that “good decision-making is informed decision-making, where all those who have a potentially useful perspective on the problem or a necessary role in the decision can participate with accurate, commonly understood information relevant to their concern” (Neufville 1975:57), in practice, very often the linkage between indicator and action/ political decision is tenuous (Cobb and Rixford 1998:23). The case of unemployment insurance scheme implementation in Estonia also proved the Cobb and Rixford assumption. The social indicators have never had the central place in the policy-making process. At the same time, the decision-making was not “informed” enough. “Problems existed without statistics” – is an argument presented by the ex-minister of social affairs for implementing unemployment insurance. I had an impression that there were no time and resources for careful and systematic research of the problematic issue.

 

The decisions are taken intuitively, without careful analysis. At the same time, the negotiations on the question of unemployment insurance were not so bureaucratic, formal and standardized, as they might have been in a “larger” Western democratic state with the elements of neo-corporatism. The policy-making process in the sphere of social policy seems to be a complex and extremely complicated issue, which requires in “ideal case” (Figure 2) the analysis of different models, different possible choices and mostly financially adequate ways of solution.

 

In the case study analyzed in the present paper, the decision-making process took place on a little bit different basis. It is possible to distinguish two types of decisions made: technical decisions associated with the implementation process and policy design and so called “political decisions” (choice of solutions and formulation of policy). There is a difference in argumentation of these two types of decisions. In the first case, the decision-makers or their advisors mostly used the “state” type quantitative and objective indicators. The role of the indicator was to justify the decision taken and to serve as an illustration to the problem or issue under discussion. The qualitative, subjective data were used during the decision-making on more general and complex issues. The research and assessment were carried out after the Act on Unemployment Insurance has been adopted. It could be intriguing to find the reasons for the deviation from the “ideal model”, to answer the question, why the decision-making in Estonia on the level of “political decisions” in social policy is not so “informed” as it could potentially be.

 

Complexity of policy-making process and possible role of social indicators

 

Hypothetically, the role of social indicators could increase with the rise of complexity and controversy of policy-making process. In case of unemployment insurance scheme, the policy actors managed to achieve the consensus relatively quickly. The more demanding and educated is the publicity, the more complex is the issue under consideration, and the more important is the role of social indicators as objective arguments of one or another position. The usage of social indicators, the types of the indicators used could depend on political culture and certain patterns of democratic development. In Estonia, the analytical potential of political parties and lobby groups is low (this was confirmed by respondents and could be traced from media analysis). The tendency could be explained by several factors: first, by lack of financial and human resources, second, by the homogeneity of the society and lack of intense political debates and discussions in the society. The consensus is easily achieved in Estonia due to the tendency “everybody knows everybody” in politics, entrepreneurship and science. There is no stimulus for development and usage of indicators in order to acquire better positions in the political debates. This hypothetical assumption could be controlled by comparative analysis of several cases in social policy in Estonia and in other countries. 

 

The other controversial question is connected to the European system of social indicators. What will change in the decision-making with the participation in the EU scheme?

  

 

The challenge to the policy-makers and researchers is to choose the “right” approach to the development of the Estonian system of social indicators in the framework of the European one, which could serve the national interests not only fulfill formal requirements of the European institutions. The challenge is to trace the changes on both the “pressure”, “state” and “response” levels, to give a basis for integration of scientific “hard” knowledge and extra-scientific (soft) knowledge of policy-makers and interest groups.  In other worlds, the optimization of the resources is needed for more “informed” and well-prepared decision-making, accompanied by social-political analysis of both external and internal factors.

 

 

References

 

Anderson J. E. (1994). Public Policymaking. An Introduction. Boston, Toronto: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Benedict, B. (1966). Problems of smaller territories. In: M. Mabton (ed). The Social Anthropology of Complex Societies. London. Tavistock Publications: 23-36.

 

Cobb C.W., Rixford C. (1998). Lessons Learned from the History of Social Indicators. San Francisco: Redefining Progress.

 

Cobb C.W. (2000). Measurement Tools and the Quality of Life. San Francisco: Redefining Progress.

 

Dye T.R. (1978). Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 

Heidenheimer A.J., Heclo H., Adams C.T. (1995). Võrdlev halduspoliitika. Sotsiaalse valiku poliitika Ameerikas, Euroopas ja Jaapanis. Tallinn: Külim.

 

Kersell J.E. (1992). An overview of the concept of smallness. In: R. Baker (ed.). Public Administration in Small and Island States. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press: 290-302.

De Neufville, J.I. (1975). Social Indicators and public policy: Interactive processes of design and application. New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

 

Peters B.G. (1986). American Public Policy: Promise and Performance. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.

 

Simpura J. (Ed). (1995). Social Policy in Transition Societies. Experience from the Baltic countries and Russia. Helsinki: The Finnish ICSW Committee, the Finnish Federation for Social Welfare.

 

Society at a Glance: OECD Social Indicators. (2001). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

 

Sutton P. (1987). Political aspects. In: C, Clarke and T. Payne (eds). Politics, Security and Development in Small States. London: Allen and Unwin: 3-25.

 

Verwayen H. (1984). Social Indicators: Actual and Potential Uses. Social Indicators Research, 1984, 14: 1-27.

 

Vogel J. (1994).  Social indicators and social reporting. Statistical Journal of the United Nations, 1994, ECE 11: 241-260.

 

Young E., Quinn L. (2002). Writing Effective Public Policy Papers. A guide for Policy Advisers in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest: Open Society Institute.

 

Zapf W. (2002). Social Reporting in the 1970s and in the 1990s. Calitatea Vieţii, 2002,

XIII, 1–4: 1-11.

 

 

 

Figure 1. Stages of policy cycle

 

 

 

Stages of policy cycle	Types of indicators	“Consumers” of indicators	Roles of indicators
Problem definition	Both subjective and objective	NGOs, interest groups, public sector organizations etc	Indicative, illustrative, attracts attention of the public, enlightening function, “state” type indicators
Policy formulation	Mainly objective, qualitative and quantitative	Public sector organizations, social partners involved in the process of decision-making	Analysing, assessing, concentrating on forecast of outcomes, allocation of resources; all types of roles
Choice of solution	Mainly objective, quantitative (in “small societies”: qualitative, subjective, based on personal experience)	Public sector organizations	The role of indicator is to calculate possible costs of every solution (“response”) and balance it with “pressure” and “state” indicators in order to get the most favourable solution
Policy design		Public sector organizations: inter-organizational decision-making	Influence of particular piece of information is difficult to trace
Implementation and monitoring	Objective, quantitative, specific (in “small societies”: subjective, qualitative, based on personal experience)	Public sector organizations and organizations involved into the process of implementation	“Pressure” and “state” types of indicators, aimed to justify allocation of resources between policy subjects
Evaluation	Both subjective and objective, qualitative and quantitative	Public sector organization, NGOs, interest groups etc	Specific indicators intended to evaluate concrete decisions. All three kinds of  indicators (“pressure”, “state” and “response”) are used by non-governmental policy actors for general evaluation and further policy planning

 

Figure 2.  The stages of policy cycle, types, “consumers” and roles of indicators (hypothesised model)