Active Ageing Index in Romania

Subnational level (NUTS 2)

Olivia RusanduPublic Manager, Romanian Ministry of Labour and Social Justice

STAKEHOLDER MEETING ON THE ACTIVE AGEING INDEX17 June 2019, Brussels

Contents

2

I. Romania’s Context (demography, regions/ NUTS 2 level and their

profile)

II. Romania’s AAI Score (by domain, as compared to EU28, 2010 –

2016)

III. Romania’s AAI Score (calculated at subnational level, by domain

and year 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016)

IV. When and why did we calculated AAI at subnational level? What

can we do next?

V. Final remarks

References

I. Romania’s ContextDemography

3

➢Romania’s population at the beginning of 2018 accounted for 22.193.562

people (Data source: NIS);

➢Elderly people (65 years old and above) accounted for 3.614.209 (16.3% of

the total population) (Data source: NIS);

➢ In recent years, population’s aging deepened even further, elderly population

(65 years old and above) surpassing by 350.000 persons the number of

children aged 0-14 years (Data source: NIS);

➢The demographic aging index raised from 107.9 (at the beginning of 2017) to

110.7 elderly for every 100 young people (at the beginning of 2018);

➢Healthy life expectancy at 65 years old and above is 5.6 years for women and

6.2 years for men, significantly below the EU28 average (in September 2018)

which was 10.1 years for women and 9.8 years for men. (Data source:

Eurostat, 2018).

I. Romania’s Context8 Development regions of Romania (NUTS 2 level)

4

I. Romania’s ContextNUTS 2 Regions’ Demographic Profile

5

Resident population, (millions) Population 65+ (%)

2010 2016 2010 2016

North West 2.72 2.58 14.04 16.29

Centre 2.52 2.34 14.12 16.74

North East 3.71 3.26 14.48 17.15

South East 2.81 2.47 14.87 18.06

South Muntenia 3.27 3.03 16.74 19.25

Bucharest - Ilfov 2.26 2.29 14.12 15.15

South West Oltenia 2.25 1.99 16.46 19.26

West 1.92 1.80 14.39 16.91

Source: Voicu, 2019

I. Romania’s ContextGDP per capita 2006-2017in NUTS2 Regions

(Purchasing Power Standards EURO, at current market prices)

6

Region/Year 2006 2010 2012 2014 2016 2017

North-West8900 11100 12500 13400 15700 16900

Centre 9300 11900 13800 14100 16500 17900

North-East 6000 7600 9000 9300 10600 11600

South East 8100 10000 12300 13600 14500 15800

South - Muntenia 7900 10000 10900 12800 13900 15100

Bucharest - Ilfov 21500 29200 33700 35500 40600 43200

South West Oltenia 7400 9300 10800 10800 12500 13600

West 10700 13900 15200 15300 18500 20000

Source: Voicu, 2019

II. Romania’s AAI Scoreas compared to EU28, 2018

Source: Gaucaite Wittich/Kharitonova/Marchetti, 2019

General scoreII.

Ro

man

ia’s

AA

I S

co

re

by d

om

ain

, as c

om

pare

d t

o E

U28,

2018

Source

: Gauca

ite W

ittich/Kharito

nova/M

arch

etti, 2

019

II. Romania’s AAI Scoreby domain, as compared to EU28 average, 2010 - 2016

9Source: Voicu, 2019

II. Romania’s AAI ScoreAs compared to EU28 (2010 - 2016)

10Source: Voicu, 2019

II. Romania’s AAI ScoreGender, as compared to EU28, 2018

Source

: Gauca

ite W

ittich/Kharito

nova/M

arch

etti, 2

019

III. Romania’s AAI Score-NUTS2Employment age 55+, by regions and year

12

Source: Voicu, 2019

III. Romania’s AAI Score- NUTS2Social Participation, overall picture

13

Source: Voicu, 2019

III. Romania’s AAI Score-NUTS2Social Participation, by region and year

14

Voluntary activities Political participation

2010 2016 2010 2016

North West 2.9 10.0 5.9 1.4

Centre 6.3 4.0 16.7 1.0

North East 1.7 0.5 5.5 2.7

South East 0.0 0.0 7.7 3.3

South Muntenia 1.0 0.0 2.0 9.3

Bucharest - Ilfov 6.5 1.5 3.4 15.6

South West Oltenia 3.7 6.7 11.5 6.7

West 3.0 0.0 7.8 1.5

Romania’s Average 3.1 2.8 7.5 5.2

Source: Voicu, 2019

III. Romania’s AAI Score-NUTS2Independent, healthy, and secure living, by region and year

15

50

55

60

65

70

75

2010 2012 2014 2016

North West Center North East South East South Muntenia Bucharest South West Oltenia West EU28 average

Source: Voicu, 2019

III. Romania’s AAI Score-NUTS2No poverty risk, by region and year

16

Source: Voicu, 2019

III. Romania’s AAI Score-NUTS2Physical exercise and lifelong learning, by region and year

17

Physical exercise Lifelong learning

2010 2016 2010 2016

North West 2.2 1.8 0.0 0.2

Centre 2.7 1.5 0.0 0.1

North East 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1

South East 0.6 3.7 0.0 0.0

South Muntenia 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.2

Bucharest - Ilfov 5.9 6.1 0.0 0.1

South West Oltenia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

West 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1

Romania 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.1

Source: Voicu, 2019

III. Romania’s AAI Score-NUTS2Change in the capacity and enabling environment for active ageing,

by region and year

18

Source: Voicu, 2019

III. Romania’s AAI Score-NUTS2Use of ICT, by region and year

19

Source: Voicu, 2019

III. Romania’s AAI Score-NUTS2Social connectedness by region in 2016

20

25-29%

30-34%

35-39%

40-44%

45-49%

50-55%

Source: Voicu, 2019

III. Romania’s AAI Score-NUTS2Educational attainment, by region and year

21

Source: Voicu, 2019

III. Romania’s AAI Score-NUTS2Gender gap in AAI by region in 2016

22Source: Voicu, 2019

III. Romania’s AAI Score-NUTS2Gender gap in AAI overall, by region and year

23Source: Voicu, 2019

III. Romania’s AAI Score-NUTS2Gender gap in employment and social participation by region

(2010-2016)

24

-9

-13

-10

-11

-13

-13

-4

-10

-10

-12

-12

-9

-13

-12

-12

-6

-11

-11

-3.5

0.8

1.9

-0.8

4.1

11.4

2.9

0.2

2.1

-1.7

-0.9

9.6

12.2

2.0

10.6

7.0

6.4

5.6

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

North West

Center

North East

South East

South Muntenia

Bucharest - Ilfov

South West Oltenia

West

Romania

Participation 2016 Participation2011 Employment 2016 Employment 2010

Source: Voicu, 2019

III. Romania’s AAI Score-NUTS2Gender gap in independent living and capacity by region (2010-

2016)

25

-6.6

-0.6

-4.3

-3.6

-4.8

-7.8

-1.2

-4.1

-4.1

-4.6

-7.5

-3.2

-7.6

-5.9

-4.2

-1.5

-4.5

-4.9

-5.2

-0.4

2.0

-3.9

-2.2

1.9

-0.5

1.6

-0.8

3.2

2.0

2.2

-1.0

-4.1

4.1

-2.8

-1.8

0.2

-10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0

North West

Center

North East

South East

South Muntenia

Bucharest

South West Oltenia

West

Romania

Capacity 2016 Capacity2010 Independent living 2016 Independent living 2010

Sourc

e:

Voic

u,

2019

III. Romania’s AAI Score-NUTS2Main findings when calculating AAI at subnational level

26

+ - Possible explanations

RO AAI score

still lags

behind EU28

average

Lag in economic development;

Insufficient infrastructure and investments;

Communist socio-cultural habits (low political

participation, patriarchal culture etc.)

AAI score increased between

2010 and 2016 in Romania

Economic development which lead to poverty

reduction and better access to healthcare;

Public policies (social benefits and services targeting

the poor, the elderly, etc),

Significant regional disparities

overall and AAI domains

(without a linear positive

correlation between regional

economic development level

and AAI score)

Disparities in economic development, infrastructure,

foreign investments etc. between regions,

Demographic trends and regional profiles.

Migration

Fertility rate

Active aging ability was quite

homogenous between regions

in 2010, but it increased in BI

and Center regions

Partly due to economic development, digital

inclusion etc

Significant gender gap Poverty (as a result of education, employment etc)

Patriarchal culture,

Policies promoted during communism.

III. Romania’s AAI Score-NUTS2Main findings when calculating AAI at subnational level

27

Indicators’ High

Scores

Indicators’ Low Scores Possible explanations

Employment

(especially for 70-74

years old group and

especially in the

poorest regions

Precarious economic conditions (further in-

depth studies required)

Social participation

(children’s, nephews’,

people with

disabilities’ care

component)

Social participation

(volunteering and

political participation)

RO tradition of caring for family members

without help from outside,

Insufficient care services places additional

burden on elderly or saving the money

which would otherwise be given to formal

carers or care services

Migration

Independent, healthy

and safe life (unsatisfied

needs of healthcare or

dental care, lack of

physical activity and LLL)

Poverty and material deprivation,

Lack of physical activity and LLL may lead

to illness (physical and mental).

IV. When and why did we calculated AAI at regional level?What can we do next?

28

MLSJ – UNECE – NIS’ Partnership for a pilot study

(2018)

Measuring AAI at NUTS 2

It is an opportunity for MLSJ to find out the elderly’s

situation at regional level

It reflects elderly’s potential for active and healthy ageing, and

regional differences

MLSJ may adjust its policies based on these

findings

MLSJ disseminates the results at regional and local

level, raising awareness

Regional authorities may adjust their regional policies based on these

findings

Measure 2.1.11 in the National Strategy for AA

29

IV. When and why did we calculated AAI at regional level?What can we do next?

As policy makers, we need tools like AAI, as:

• It captures various dimensions of active ageing and indicates how much of

the potential of elderly is used and what is untapped,

• It gives an overall score but also scores per components and indicators,

thus allowing for targeted interventions (where they are most needed),

• It may be used for ex-ante and ex-post evaluation (before and after

implementing a certain policy or measure),

• It allows progress’ measurement,

• It may be the basis for future and more in-depth research to find the roots

of the issues identified,

• It may be used to compare with other countries and regions (if they are

comparable),

• It offers the basis for elderly policies elaboration or adjustment, leading in

the end to a better quality of life for elderly people.

30

V. Final remarks

➢ Results revealed and lessons learned:

✓ Positive aspects,

✓ Aspects that can be improved,

✓ Surprises, both good (high employment rate) and “less good” (low political

participation, lack of physical activity, volunteering and LLL)

➢ All of these are really helpful for MLSJ and other stakeholders (as mentioned

during and after the AAI seminar in Bucharest, May 2019), showing a current, real

picture and also comparable pictures of moments in time (2010, 2012, 2014, 2016)

➢ Plans for the future:

✓ Further disseminating the RO AAI NUTS2 results,

✓ Using the results in drafting the future Strategy for Active Aging and Elderly’s

Protection post 2020,

✓ Using the results for new EU funded projects to address the “less

good”/”improvable” aspects identified,

✓ Recalculating RO AAI NUTS2 in the future, for progress assessment

31

References

• Vitalija Gaucaite Wittich/Olga Kharitonova/Ettore Marchetti

(2019) – “Active Aging Index: monitoring tool for aging-

related policies”- presentation given at the national seminar

“Active Aging Index in Romania”, 30 May 2019, Bucharest

• Mălina Voicu (2019) – “Active Aging Index: monitoring tool

for aging-related policies”- presentation given at the

national seminar “Active Aging Index in Romania-Subnational

Level”, 30 May 2019, Bucharest

32

Thank you!