WELL-BEING IN SLOVENIA

Well-being and its changes in Slovenia are shown with headline indicators by areas and subareas for 2011, 2012 and 2013. Progress (+), decline (-) and stagnation (o) are estimated year-on-year and presented so as to show the trends in the observed year compared to the previous year. The stagnation mark does not necessarily mean that the results in the current year are exactly the same as in the previous year, but that changes are so minute that they do not reflect a reliable progress or decline. The extent of year-on-year progress or decline for individual indicators differs; due to annual variations it is possible to produce more reliable assessment of the changes in well-being only over a longer period.

Table: Changes in the well-being in Slovenia shown with headline indicators by areas and subareas, 2011−2013

AREA, SUBAREA, HEADLINE INDICATOR	SLOVENIA
AREA, SUBAREA, HEADLINE INDICATOR	2011	2012	2013
MATERIAL WELL-BEING
Income of the population: Gross adjusted disposable income of households and NPISH per capita, in PPS	+	-	o
Property of the population and economic security: Household financial assets per capita, in EUR	-	o	+
Poverty and social exclusion: At-risk-of-poverty rate, in %	-	o	-
Consumption: Final consumption expenditure of households and NPISH per capita, national concept, in PPS	+	+	-
Work and employment: Employment rate for the population aged 20−64 years, in %	-	o	-
Housing: Housing deprivation rate, in %	+	+	+
SOCIAL WELL-BEING
Satisfaction/happiness: Life satisfaction, in %	-	+	-
Education: Share of the population with at least upper secondary education, in %	+	+	+
Health: Life expectancy at birth (men, women), number of years	+	+	o
Social climate: Trust in institutions – parliament, in %	-	+	-
Personal security: Mortality due to assault per 100,000 inhabitants, number	-	+
Communication: Broadband Internet access in households, in %	+	+	+
Culture and leisure: Satisfaction with distribution of time, average assessment		+
ENVIRONMENTAL WELL-BEING
Land and ecosystems: Farmland birds index, index	+	o	-
Air: Urban population exposure to air pollution by particulate matter, in µg/m3	-	+	+
Water: Nitrates in groundwater, in mg/l	-	+	o
Climate: Severe weather warnings, number of days per year	-	-	+
Energy sources: Share of renewables in gross final energy consumption, in %	o	+	+
Non-energy sources: Domestic material consumption per person, in kg	+	+	o
Waste: Landfilled municipal waste per capita, in kg	+	+	+

Legend: favourable impact on well-being (+, green), unfavourable impact on well-being (-, red), stagnation (o, orange), no data (empty, white).

Until the onset of the economic crisis, the relatively rapid economic development in Slovenia was increasing the material and social well-being of people in Slovenia. However, with emissions and irrational use of natural resources it was burdening the environment and reducing the environmental well-being. With the onset of the economic crisis in 2008 well-being changed. Due to the government’s anti-crisis measures regarding employment and increased social transfers, the crisis in the area of material well-being was not that large for a number of years. Its deterioration was caused by several years of decline in economic activity, which had a very negative impact on the labour market. Changes in social legislation, which redefined the eligibility of people to receive social transfers, and austerity measures, which affected the income of public sector employees and other government expenditures, also had a negative impact. By 2013, material well-being was reduced in almost all areas. Provisional data for 2014 show that with the upturn in economic activity and increased employment the decline in material well-being stopped at least in some subareas. The social well-being was not affected much by the crisis until 2012. In 2012 and in 2013 some indicators in the area of social climate and personal security deteriorated. With the reduced economic activity, the crisis contributed to the decline in emissions and exploitation of natural resources and thus had a positive impact on environmental well-being. The crisis led to some high-quality structural and other changes, which will contribute to a long-term decrease in emissions and more rational exploitation of natural resources even with improved economic activity.