Questions

1. The Politics and Policy of Wellbeing: Understanding the Rise and Significance of a New AgendaPresentation to PSA Annual Conference, Brighton 21.3.2016 Ian Bache, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield and Louise Reardon, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds

2. Questions • How and why has the idea of wellbeing risen up the political agenda? (multiple streams approach: Kingdon 2011) • What are the policy implications of the rising political interest in the idea of wellbeing? (social learning: Hall 1993; 2013) • Is wellbeing an idea whose time has come? We look at rise of wellbeing internationally, but look in detail at the UK and compare this with the EU). From this we: • Critique and develop the MSA approach to incorporate the insights of multi-level governance • Propose a synthesis of the two approaches.

3. The idea of wellbeing* Debates on the ‘good life’ and the role of the state in promoting it goes back to ancient Greeks Current interest in wellbeing critiques the dominance of GDP and related indicators as emblematic of progress. Two waves of political interest post-war. • First wave emerged in 1960s - social challenges and rise of post-materialism. • Second wave 1990s to now – began with environmental concerns, but increased understanding of drivers of wellbeing / how to measure wellbeing also important.

4. Rise of wellbeing (UK) Politics stream: interest under Labour govt. but not sustained • Cameron an advocate since 2006: took a high profile stance as PM in 2010 to support ONS wellbeing programme • International momentum: Sarkozy/Stiglitz Commission 2009 Policy stream: gradual improvement in ‘science’ of wellbeing Problem stream: growing critique of GDP as a benchmark of progress and dominance of economic indicators in policy (eg Stiglitz Commission). But frame conflicts continue. UK developments closely linked to international developments: multi-level governance

5. A multi-level multiple streams approach

6. Policy implications • Most are ‘first order’ changes - adjustments to departmental surveys or to evaluation and appraisal techniques • Also small number of ‘second order’ changes (IAPTs; flexible working) • ‘Third order’ (paradigm) change a distant prospect But this is seen as a long-term agenda – initial hesitance shifted to a focus on ‘what works’ to promote wellbeing in policy: What Works Center for Wellbeing created in 2015

7. Theoretical conclusions • Kingdon’s dynamics are evident: problem identified; incremental policy stream; and lurch forward in politics stream • Hall provides a useful distinction between orders of change and the dynamics relating to each, with paradigm change least likely. – this requires a motivation (reason to act), means (ideas) and motor (forces that keep momentum) • While the two approaches aim to explain different stages of the policy process, there are many similarities - motivation, means and motor resemble the 3 streams: problems provide the motivation; policy the means; and politics the motor • Moreover, many of the dynamics and participants at agenda-setting remain present during 1st and 2nd order change

8. Theoretical synthesis • 1st and 2nd order changes can provide the means crucial to 3rd order change. – providing an explicit link between agenda-setting process and the prospects for significant policy change • So understanding prospects for wellbeing in policy is deepened by tracing developments from agenda-setting onwards through this synthesis of complementary frameworks • And placing all of this within the context of multi-level governance

9. Conclusion: Is wellbeing an idea whose time has come? • In some respects yes – new measurements, shifts in discourse and some policy changes. But to argue this convincingly requires evidence of major shifts in policy – at the stage of finding out ‘what works’ • Would require a ‘third wave’’ in which wellbeing is internalized by key actors and is institutionalized in policy practice. • This is some distance away – but this is explicitly a long-term agenda