development report 2012 - UMAR

Development Report 2012
Development by the priorities of SDS – A modern welfare state and higher employment
65
been achieved in the following categories: ecological
footprint (ranked 30 th ), life expectancy (ranked 34 th )
and happiness indicator (ranked 37 th ). According to
the Sustainable Society Index (SSI) 186 , Slovenia ranked
8 th out of 151 countries in 2010 – the same ranking as
two years earlier – mostly due to its high score in terms
of economic and human well-being dimensions 187 . The
attainment of the same or similar rankings by Slovenia
in the aforementioned scales does not mean that the
Slovenian population’s level of well-being remained
unchanged during the economic crisis; the indicators
stated above either (i) generally only reflect Slovenia’s
position in relation to other countries also affected
by the crisis; (ii) are, to a certain extent, based on precrisis
data; or (iii) also include components which, in the
short term, cannot reveal fundamental changes (e.g.
years of schooling, education level, life expectancy, etc.).
Therefore, in order to facilitate a more detailed insight
into the situation in the area of well-being (taking into
account the as yet undefined way in which it is to be
monitored in Slovenia), certain indicators, often used for
this purpose by international organisations and other
countries in their practice, are described below (for
sustainable development indicators, see Chapter 5).
4.3.1. Material living conditions
Household disposable income has decreased for the
third year in a row. In 2010 it fell by 0.2% in real terms 188
and slightly more in 2011, according to our estimates.
Compensation of employees, which includes income
from work and represents the largest category of
disposable income, was lower in 2010, while business
and other household income also decreased. Due to a
more restrictive policy of adjustments 189 , social benefits
(together with pensions, except social transfers in kind)
grew only moderately (2.9% in real terms, i.e. slightly
186
The Sustainable Society Index (SSI) was developed in 2006
by the Sustainable Society Foundation. It is based on three
dimensions of sustainability: human, environmental and
economic wellbeing. This index thus comprises 24 indicators
divided in eight categories and covering three dimensions of
wellness consisting of: human well-being, environmental wellbeing
and economic well-being. Most important for ensuring
sustainability are human well-being and environmental wellbeing.
187
The data for a particular index are 2 to 5 years older than
the index itself; The 2010 index is composed of data obtained
between 2005 and 2008, while the 2008 index includes data
covering the period from 2003 to 2007.
188
SORS publishes non-financial accounts by sector once a
year (last publication 30 September 2011). However, certain
components of the disposable income, such as compensations
of employees, are published more frequently, which enables
us to update the disposable income estimate. By taking into
account the data on the compensation of employees last
published, the disposable income fell by 0.5% in real terms
according to our estimate.
189
Intervention Measures Act (OG RS, no. 94/2010).
less than the average during the period 2000–2010).
However, their share of disposable income nevertheless
increased by slightly less than 1 percentage point
(to 28.1%). Social transfers in kind were increasing
at a slower rate (1.2% in real terms). For the most part
(84% in 2010), they are earmarked for health care and
education, and the rest for recreation, culture, religion,
and social protection. Following a 0.5% reduction in
2009, the adjusted disposable income for social transfers
in kind 190 thus in real terms remained at the same level in
2010. Following a 4.3% reduction in 2009, the adjusted
disposable income per capita increased in 2010 by 2.7%
in purchasing power parity terms and reached 83.4% of
the income per capita in the EU. This equals the average
percentage for 2004 and 2005 (85.4% in 2008).
The net wage bill, the major source of a population’s
disposable income has, in real terms, been decreasing
since 2009, while public expenditure on cash benefits
has been growing. Considering the low economic
activity, the net wage per employee significantly rose in
2010, owing to the increase in the minimum wage (by
2.1% in real terms). However, given that the number
of wage recipients declined (‐2.6%), the net wage bill
shrank by 0.6% in real terms. In 2011 these trends were
similar. The number of wage recipients continued to
decline for the third year in a row (-2.4%). The net wage
per employee increased, yet substantially less than in
previous years (2.1% in nominal terms and 0.3% in real
terms). The result was the greatest reduction in the net
wage bill measured thus far (-2.1% in real terms and 0.4%
in nominal terms). In 2011 the gross wage per employee
increased by 2.0% (in real terms by 0.2%) and like in
2010, only because of wage growth in the private sector
(2.6%), since in the public sector, it stagnated. Conversely,
social transfers from public funds 191 increased by 2.6%
in real terms in 2010 (by 5.5% in 2009). The structure
of funds reveals an increase in the share earmarked for
unemployed people and, to a lesser extent, for poor
people and people participating in education, for whom
the funds in real terms mostly increased (by 17.2% for
people participating in education, and by 14.1% for poor
people). As was the case for the year before, the largest
share was earmarked for retired people (52.1%), people
with disabilities (13.2%) and parents (11.2%).
190
The adjusted disposable income is derived from the disposable
income by adding the value of the social transfers in kind
received and given. For households, these transfers represent
sources, while for not-profit institutions serving households and
the state, they mean expenditure. This aspect facilitates time
comparisons of differences or changes in economic and social
conditions, and allows for an analysis of the role of the state in
the re-distribution of income (European System of National and
Regional Accounts 1995, 2005, par. 8.33–8.35).
191
These are benefits financed by the government budget,
municipal budgets and social insurance funds. Source of data:
IMAD's Database of Cash Benefits (ZDPU); the relevant data
have been gathered by IMAD since 1992 and include cash
benefits for 14 target groups.