KEY POINTS:
Problems of comparability are part of international studies. How do you accurately judge the lot of an Auckland resident against that of the citizen of Amsterdam? Always, there are complications over the availability of data, the subjectivity of definitions and cultural context. Thus, inevitably, there must be question-marks over aspects of Unicef's report card on child wellbeing in OECD countries.
Reaction has dwelt on New Zealand ranking in the bottom half of developed countries in two-thirds of the report's measures of wellbeing. To many, this further diminishes the concept of the country as a paradise for bringing up children. Most tellingly, New Zealand is ranked last out of 24 OECD countries for the number of children under 19 killed in accidents and injuries, including violence, murder and suicide. Sobering this may be, but it should come as little surprise after the stream of tragic child-abuse headlines over the past few years.
But New Zealand does surprisingly well in some categories, notably education, where it is ranked sixth on the achievements of 15-year-olds in reading, mathematics and scientific literacy. Yet it is also the worst-ranked nation for the percentage of 15 to 19-year-olds in full or part-time education. This apparent contrariness draws attention to the problem of cultural differences. How can such a study make allowance for the customs under which young Europeans remain in education much longer than youngsters in New Zealand?
Children's Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro has also pointed out statistical shortcomings. "The New Zealand data is varied, incomplete and some of it is outdated," she says. In particular, many of the statistics from other countries were based on a World Health Organisation survey which did not include New Zealand. This reinforces the difficulties of comparison, as does the report's inclusion of a subjective wellbeing category, which asked 15-year-olds whether they felt lonely. It is difficult to take seriously any attempt to compare the feelings of a teenager in Wellington with one in Warsaw in this manner.
Because of such frailties, the Unicef report may most meaningfully be seen as a way of confirming trends in New Zealand, not its relativity to the rest of the world. The next edition should, for example, be scanned more for the effect of the Government's Working for Families plan in the material wellbeing category than any ranking comparison with the likes of Canada and the Czech Republic.
These surveys of the world's richest nations need also to be placed in a more realistic context. It should no longer be a surprise when New Zealand receives a poor ranking in some area. A re-evaluation of its position is overdue. The Government's ambition, economically, is, after all, only to reach the top half of the OECD. It is not shooting for the summit, only a place in the top 12 nations.
In terms of child wellbeing, it is certainly true that wealth alone does not guarantee a high ranking - the US and Britain fare especially badly in this report - but expectations about New Zealand's ranking should be tempered. If this were done, there would be far less concern that, for instance, it has slipped from among the best in the world to fourth-worst in the OECD for the number of babies dying before their first birthday. The emphasis, instead, would be on the fact that New Zealand's rate had fallen to 0.6 per cent in the Unicef report and 0.5 per cent last year. Progress is being made. International league tables should not make us lose sight of that.
