From measuring what matters to governing with what we measure – lessons from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Dashboards are common in UK public policy, but dashboards that change decisions are much rarer. There is therefore good reason to pay attention to the conclusions of the UN Secretary General’s High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Beyond GDP, which has produced arguably the clearest global blueprint yet for measuring social progress.
Reiterating familiar arguments about the shortcomings of GDP as a holistic measure, the Group recommends a practical dashboard of indicators which can be adapted to local context. Critically, the authors also emphasise the importance of a stronger implementation agenda so that measurement shapes policy governance, decision making and accountabilities.
On paper, this will sound familiar across the UK’s devolved nations. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have all moved further than the UK Government in embedding wellbeing thinking into governance. Analysis of their experience suggests that the next challenge is not simply to publish broader dashboards, but to connect them more firmly to the disciplines and routines of government, principally policy prioritisation, budgeting and accountability.
Scotland; a shared outcomes framework still searching for traction
Scotland’s National Performance Framework (NPF) is one of the earliest and most sustained attempts in the UK to define progress in terms of collective wellbeing. It brings together a set of national outcomes and indicators that reflect the multidimensional nature of progress, underpinned by legislation requiring Ministers to determine and report on those outcomes.
The Scottish Government should be applauded for pioneering the NPF, and for the extent to which it managed to create a shared language across policy and public services. However, a 2024 review which has not yet concluded highlights a persistent and familiar gap between rhetoric and meaningful implementation.
The fact of having a framework is insufficient if it does not routinely shape resource allocation, delivery choices and ways of working, or feature in the rituals of Parliamentary scrutiny. Scotland has shown that longevity alone is not enough to change culture and practice in public policy; there is a golden opportunity for the current refresh of the NPF to draw on the timely and highly relevant conclusions of the HLEG.
Wales; institutionalising long-termism still to deliver impact at scale
The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 embedded wellbeing directly into public governance. National indicators track progress against seven wellbeing goals, while national milestones set expectations for the pace and scale of change over time. Specific ways of working for public bodies were also spelled out.
This framework is reinforced by institutional accountability. The Future Generations Commissioner provides independent scrutiny and formal advice, with government required to respond. There is also a defined scrutiny role for Audit Wales.
In theory at least, this turns measurement into a mechanism for learning and accountability, rather than simply reporting. It ought to provide some of the “teeth” which we have observed as being missing from the Scottish context. However, in the decade since the landmark legislation was passed, change has been more limited than many had hoped. Key barriers that have been observed include limits on accountability; misaligned institutional structures and resourcing processes; and the broad (and sometimes abstract) nature of the Act.
The new Welsh Government made a manifesto commitment to strengthen the Act with a focus on sharper accountability; clearer duties; stronger integration with budgets and delivery systems; and deeper public participation. It remains to be seen when and where this will feature in the new Senedd term,
Northern Ireland; first steps towards integrating wellbeing into programme delivery
The Executive’s Programme for Government 2024–2027 is underpinned by a wellbeing dashboard, tracking around 50 indicators across social, economic, environmental and democratic domains. It is explicitly aligned to the government’s priorities of People, Planet and Prosperity alongside a cross-cutting commitment to Peace and is ostensibly designed to help policymakers understand which interventions are working, for whom, and under what conditions.
This reflects two important strands of the UN approach. First, the emphasis on equity and inclusion, supported here by disaggregated data. Second, the recognition that foundational conditions such as safety, trust and institutional effectiveness are integral to progress.
Northern Ireland’s highly siloed governmental institutions militate against a holistic approach to policy development and evidence. However, the work so far does offer an emerging example of how wellbeing evidence might be embedded in the narrative and machinery of government, creating a feedback loop between data, policy and delivery.
UK Government; strong measurement but a weak connection to policy
Set against this backdrop, the UK Government’s position is something of an outlier.
The Office for National Statistics’ Measures of National Well-being dashboard is robust and internationally respected. It provides a comprehensive picture of individual, community and national wellbeing, including both headline indicators and a broader evidence base.
However, unlike in the devolved administrations, the framework appears even in theory to be largely unmoored from policy governance, with very limited integration with spending, performance management or scrutiny. While there is some expectation that civil servants will consider wellbeing impacts in appraisal and evaluation, in practice formal appraisal guidance has tended to focus on the four subjective wellbeing measures. Use of the whole dashboard is at best uneven, and the data is not used to tell a compelling national story of progress.
In many ways, the ONS dashboard eloquently embodies a key HLEG message, namely that measures alone – however good – will not change outcomes unless linked to how governments make decisions.
Next steps for the UK; building on the devolved learning
The UK Government is fortunate to have so much learning to draw on from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Three shifts in current practice would do much to help derive greater policy value from the wellbeing data.
First, the creation of a clearer policy architecture. At present, the ONS dashboard consists of a collection of indicators which don’t add up to a coherent model of progress. For all their weaknesses in implementation, the devolved frameworks have gone a long way to demonstrating how an overall vision for the country translates into outcomes for a population, with indicators telling the story of progress.
Second, the embedding of wellbeing in decision-making. The central lesson from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is the importance of linking the indicators to real decisions. This could include requiring departments to set out how major policies and spending choices are expected to improve priority wellbeing outcomes and address inequalities.
Finally, strengthening accountability and learning. Regular reporting to Parliament on a small set of priority wellbeing indicators supported by independent scrutiny would help ensure that evidence informs debate and drives improvement over time.
The UK Government is sometimes framed as needing to catch up with its international counterparts on the Beyond GDP agenda. In fact, as is so often the case, there is learning to be found much closer to home in the experience and practice of the devolved governments.
Across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we can already see the contours of a different model of governance, one that takes wellbeing seriously as an organising principle for policy. These models are not perfect, and each continues to evolve. But taken together, they demonstrate that change is both possible and practical.
The UN HLEG report provides a timely prompt and challenge to the UK Government, and the experience of devolution provides a credible pathway. The remaining question is whether there is a willingness to align institutions, incentives and decisions with what Government already knows – and measures – matters.
About the author
Sarah Davidson is chief executive at Carnegie UK. From 1995 to 2019 Sarah was a civil servant working for the UK and Scottish Governments in policy and operational roles. Her last post in government was director general for organisational development and operations. Sarah is an honorary professor at the Glasgow University Centre for Public Policy and she chairs the charity JRSST-CT which works to address political inequalities.
Photo Credit: Artur Kraft on Unsplash