Social Indicators Research

, Volume 84, Issue 2, pp 231–247 | Cite as

The inter-temporal aspect of well-being and societal progress

  • Pavle SicherlEmail author


The perceptions on well-being and societal progress are influenced also by the quantitative indicators and measures used in the measurement, presentation and semantics of discussing these issues. The article presents a novel generic statistical measure S-time-distance, with clear interpretability that delivers a broader concept to look at data, to understand and compare situations. This methodology can provide a new insight to many problems, an additional statistical measure, and a presentation tool for policy analysis and debate expressed in time units, readily understood by policy makers, media and general public. The benefits of this new view in comparisons, competitiveness issues, benchmarking, target setting and monitoring for economic, employment, social, R&D and environment indicators at the world, OECD, EU, country, regional, city, sector, socio-economic groups, company, project, household and individual levels could be immediately applied to a wide variety of substantive fields at macro and micro levels using existing data and indicator systems from international, national, state, city and local sources. These suggestions are illustrated by comparisons between EU15 and USA.


S-time-distance Economic and social indicators Well-being Societal progress USA EU 



This article is based on my background paper under this title for the joint OECD/JRC workshop ‘Measuring Well-being and Societal Progress’, 19–21 June 2006, Milan. Co-financing of the Slovenian Research Agency under the programme P5-0117 is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Atkinson, A. B., & Brandolini, A. (2004, August). Global world inequality: Absolute, relative or intermediary? (Paper presented at the 28th General Conference of the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, Cork, Ireland),
  2. Cairncross, F. (1998). The death of distance, how the communications revolution will change our lives. (London: Orion Business Books)Google Scholar
  3. Giovannini, E. (2005). ‘Foreword’ in Statistics, knowledge and policy: Key indicators to inform decision making. (Paris: OECD)Google Scholar
  4. Granger, C. W. J., & Jeon, Y. (1997). Measuring lag structure in forecasting models: The introduction of time distance, Discussion paper No. 97–24. (San Diego: University of California)Google Scholar
  5. Granger, C. W. J., & Jeon, Y. (2003a). A time-distance criterion for evaluating forecasting models. International Journal of Forecasting, 19, 199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Granger, C. W. J., & Jeon, Y. (2003b). Comparing forecasts of inflation using time distance. International Journal of Forecasting, 19, 339–349Google Scholar
  7. Kakwani, N. C. (1980). Income inequality and poverty, methods of estimation and policy applications. (New York: Oxford University Press)Google Scholar
  8. Martinho, G. (2005). Interview with Pavle Sicherl in the Semanario Economico, Lisbon, March 18, 2005Google Scholar
  9. OECD (2005). OECD world forum on key indicators: Proposals for follow-up, STD/DO(2005)60, Chief Statistician and Director, Statistics Directorate, ParisGoogle Scholar
  10. Sen, A. K. (1973). On economic inequality. (Oxford: Clarendon Press)Google Scholar
  11. Sicherl, P. (1973). Time distance as a dynamic measure of disparities in social and economic development. Kyklos XXVI, Fasc, 3, 559–575Google Scholar
  12. Sicherl, P. (1989). Methods of measuring disparity between men and women: A technical report. (Santo Domingo: United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women)Google Scholar
  13. Sicherl, P. (1992). Integrating comparisons across time and space: Methodology and applications to disparities within Yugoslavia. Journal of Public Policy, 12, 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sicherl, P. (1993). Integrating comparisons across time and space, methodology and applications to disparities within Yugoslavia. Studies in Public Policy, No. 213. (Glasgow: Centre for the Study of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde)Google Scholar
  15. Sicherl, P. (1994). Time distance as an additional measure of discrepancy between actual and estimated values in time series models. International Symposium on Economic Modelling, Washington D.C., The World Bank. (Ljubljana: Sicenter)Google Scholar
  16. Sicherl, P. (1997). Time distance measure in economic modelling. International Symposium on Economic Modelling in London, University of London, July 23–25. (Ljubljana: Sicenter)Google Scholar
  17. Sicherl, P. (1999). A new view in comparative analysis. IB Revija, XXXIII, 1Google Scholar
  18. Sicherl, P. (2002, July). Time distance: A missing link in comparative analysis. (Paper presented at the XV. World Congress of Sociology, Brisbane)Google Scholar
  19. Sicherl, P. (2004a). Time-distance analysis: Method and applications, eWisdom, Vol. 2aGoogle Scholar
  20. Sicherl, P. (2004b). Comparing in two dimensions: A broader concept and a novel statistical measure of the time dimension of disparities. European Societies, 6(2), 181–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sicherl, P. (2004c, August). Time distance: A missing link in comparative analysis. (Paper presented at the 28th General Conference of the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth. (Cork, Ireland),
  22. Sicherl, P. (2005). A comparison of European and US economies based on time distances. (Brussels: Eurochambres)Google Scholar
  23. Whitman, W. (1973). [1945], On the beach at night alone. (In Mark van Doren (Ed.), The portable Walt Whitman. (New York: The Viking Press))Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Socio-economic Indicators CenterLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations