How's Life? 2024 – Well-being and Resilience in Times of Crisis

The report provides a very detailed overview of well-being in OECD countries, including health, mental health, social inequalities, housing and social capital, with data up to 2023-2024. A CLS coordinator, an ARS, a department or an associative federation can use it to objectify the issues (cost of living crisis, loneliness, 'deaths of despair', exposure to heatwaves) and justify territorial priorities. Prevention, social and medico-social actors find a framework to link their field actions to international indicators of well-being and resilience.

1. Analytical summary

Context of polycrises and well-being issues

The report is set against a backdrop of "polycrises": the succession of the 2008 financial crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, the cost of living crisis, geopolitical tensions, and the worsening impacts of climate change. It utilises the OECD Well-Being Framework to document, with over 80 indicators, the current state of well-being in OECD countries, its distribution among social groups, and the resources necessary for its sustainability (natural, human, economic, and social capital). The targeted audiences are primarily national governments, but the analyses directly concern young populations, low-income individuals, those with low educational qualifications, as well as women and men according to differentiated risk profiles. The document shows that, while employment and average income have been protected by massive public responses, housing costs, perceived financial difficulties, mental health, loneliness, and exposure to climate hazards have deteriorated or remain at concerning levels. It also highlights persistent inequalities based on gender, age, and education level, with sometimes a "catch-up from below" when previously advantaged groups deteriorate more quickly. Finally, it warns about the weakening of resources for the future (climate, biodiversity, social capital, PISA results) that condition the resilience of societies.

Operational contributions for field actors

The report provides a structured overview of the evolution of material conditions (income, employment, housing), quality of life (health, mental health, skills, environment, safety), and community relations (social time, perceived support, civic participation). It offers a systematic reading of trends from 2010 to 2019 and then from 2019 to 2022-2023, allowing for the identification of areas where the crisis has interrupted or reversed progress, such as student skills, life satisfaction, physical pain, anxiety, sadness, and loneliness. Analyses of inequalities by gender, age, and education level provide benchmarks for targeting interventions at particularly exposed groups (youth for mental health and social connections, men for 'deaths of despair', low-income households for housing and energy, and less educated individuals for all dimensions of well-being). The distinction between current well-being and resources for the future helps to articulate short-term interventions (income protection, psychological support, combating loneliness) with long-term strategies (education, participation, climate, trust in institutions). For local actors, the framework and indicators can serve as a matrix for building or revising territorial diagnostics, arguing for intersectoral action plans, and monitoring the impact of prevention, community health, and social cohesion policies.

2. Key points of the document 

1. The resilience of income and employment masks a significant experienced financial insecurity.

   The report shows that, thanks to public interventions, average disposable incomes have not fallen and that employment rates for those aged 25-64 reached historic levels in 2023, while unemployment remained low. However, the share of low-income households burdened by housing costs has increased in a third of countries since 2019, and nearly one in five people still report having difficulties making ends meet, while the decline in this proportion has significantly slowed after the pandemic (p. 36-45).

2. Deterioration of health, mental health, and skills among young people

   Average life expectancy has declined since 2019 due to excess mortality related to COVID-19, although it remains above the level of 2010, and the previous decline in 'deaths of despair' (suicides, overdoses, acute alcohol) has halted. At the same time, PISA results in mathematics and reading have significantly dropped between 2018 and 2022, and indicators of physical pain, worry, sadness, and loneliness have worsened or stabilised at high levels, particularly among young people (p. 47-59).

3. Persistent inequalities, sometimes reduced by the deterioration of the better-off

   Individuals with tertiary education consistently achieve better well-being outcomes than those with lower qualifications, whether in terms of employment, health, social connections, or physical pain, with significant and lasting gaps since 2010. While many well-being gaps by age and gender have narrowed over the decade, it is sometimes because previously advantaged groups, particularly young people in terms of life satisfaction and social connections, or men in terms of pain, worry, and loneliness, have seen their outcomes deteriorate more sharply (p. 79-94).

4. Threats to sustainability: climate, biodiversity, social capital and human capital

   Greenhouse gas emissions per capita decreased before and during the pandemic, but no OECD country is on track to meet the 2030 climate targets on its own, while 15% of the population is already exposed to extreme heatwaves and progress in recycling and protected areas is slowing. The decline of the Red List index in most countries, the stagnation of interpersonal trust, the dip in trust in governments after a peak during the COVID crisis, and the drop in PISA results signal a weakening of the natural, social and human capital essential for future well-being (pp. 62-74, pp. 30-31).

5. Divergences between countries but common issues to be addressed in an integrated manner

   Analyses show that some countries have made more progress on material conditions than on other dimensions of well-being, and that performance in resources for the future is very varied, particularly for natural and social capital. Nevertheless, all countries face trade-offs between improving current well-being and sustainability, the need to simultaneously address economic, social, environmental and relational dimensions, and the challenge of strengthening trust in institutions to make the transformations related to the green and digital transitions acceptable (pp. 96-105, pp. 24-25).

3. Action points for local actors 

1. Integrate well-being and inequality indicators into territorial diagnostics

   Chapters 1 and 2 provide a structured framework and key indicators for the dimensions of 'material conditions', 'quality of life', and 'community relations', with thresholds of change deemed significant. Local authorities and ARS can draw inspiration from this to construct local dashboards that intersect income, energy poverty, housing, mental health, loneliness, participation, and institutional trust, in order to guide action priorities (p. 24‑31, p. 35‑36).

2. Targeting mental health, loneliness, and 'deaths of despair' among at-risk groups

   The executive and Chapter 2 document the halt in the decline of 'deaths of despair', the rise in physical pain, and the increase or stagnation of levels of anxiety, sadness, and loneliness in many countries. Field actors can prioritise detection and psychosocial support mechanisms for young people, isolated men, and those in economic insecurity, by articulating mental health actions, addiction prevention, and strengthening social ties (p. 52‑59, p. 21‑22).

3. Using inequalities by age, gender, and education to refine targeting

   Chapter 3 shows that young people are experiencing a relative decline in their subjective well-being and social ties, that women remain disadvantaged in certain economic and security aspects, and that less educated individuals accumulate vulnerabilities. Prevention teams, social services, and medico-social teams can cross-reference their local data with this framework to adjust targeting (for example, support programmes for NEET young people, securing pathways for vulnerable women, literacy and retraining actions for less educated populations) (p. 81‑92).

4. Articulate immediate actions and sustainability levers (climate, education, participation)

   The findings on natural, human, economic, and social capital remind us that reducing current vulnerabilities must go hand in hand with long-term investments, particularly in education, civic participation, and adaptation to climate change. Local actors can align their health, social cohesion, and planning plans with objectives to reduce exposure to heatwaves, improve air quality, strengthen educational capital, and develop mechanisms for resident participation (p. 62‑66, p. 30‑31, p. 101‑104).

5. Strengthen trust and participation to support upcoming transformations

   The report highlights that trust in governments increased during the acute phase of the pandemic and then receded, and that civic participation and the inclusion of different social groups in decision-making processes are factors of resilience. At the local level, developing co-construction approaches for projects (participatory budgets, citizen juries, user bodies) and enhancing transparency and accountability can help build the acceptability of ecological and social transition policies (p. 70‑73, p. 23‑24).

4. Additional references

🔍➕ For more information, see the articles referenced by "Health Practices" on the topic of inequalities ➡️🔗https://pratiquesensante.odoo.com/2-1-inegalies-sociales-territoriales

1. OECD (2023). Understanding Social Connectedness – Policy Approaches to Reduce Loneliness and Isolation.

   OECD working paper (announced in the 2024 report and published subsequently) detailing the levers for action on social connections and loneliness.https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/social-connections-and-loneliness-in-oecd-countries_6df2d6a0-en.html

5. Cross-cutting analysis — values of Health Practices

• Literacy: The document is not designed for low literacy audiences; it is aimed at decision-makers, using technical language and complex tables, but the well-being framework can be adapted into simplified materials.

• Empowerment: Beneficiaries are not directly involved in the production of the report, but taking into account perceptions (life satisfaction, trust, sense of security) and inequalities aims to guide policies that are more focused on the needs of populations.

• Participation: The report describes mechanisms of participation through indicators of civic participation, voting, and engagement in regulatory processes, without detailing co-construction arrangements at the micro level.

• Community health: The collective dimension appears through the notion of social capital, social ties, and community actions for mental health and cohesion, without proposing operational models of community health.

• Ethics: The report explicitly addresses socio-economic, gender, age, and education level inequalities, and highlights the risks of polarization, but does not finely address cultural or racial biases.

• Human rights: The approach is centred on equity, the reduction of deprivations, and intergenerational sustainability, which is consistent with a rights-based perspective, but human rights are not mobilised as an explicit legal framework.

• Intersectorality: The report emphasises the need for ‘whole-of-government’ policies and coordination between economy, social, environment, education, and health, without going into detail about local configurations.

• Partnership: It calls for the joint commitment of governments, communities, economic actors, civil society, and communities, but does not describe formalised models of operational partnership.

• Combating discrimination: The document documents inequalities and certain structural discriminations through outcome gaps, but does not directly address discrimination related to ethnic origin, disability, or sexual orientation, nor the issue of non-judgment in practices.

6. Assessment of the reliability of the resource

• Scientific relevance

  The report is based on an explicit conceptual framework (OECD Well-being Framework), a dashboard of over 80 indicators, standardised time series since 2010, and a detailed description of the thresholds of variation deemed significant. The sources mainly come from national statistical institutes, international surveys (PISA, Gallup, trust surveys), and harmonised environmental databases, with attention paid to the limitations of frequency and data availability, particularly for usage time and social indicators. The data is up to date until 2023-2024 for a large part of the indicators, and the methods for calculating trends are explained (comparison 2010-2019 and 2019-last point), which supports a cautious but solid interpretation.

• Operational relevance

  The document does not provide detailed recommendations but offers a robust diagnosis serving as a basis for defining priorities and constructing monitoring indicators for prevention policies, mental health, tackling inequalities, and climate adaptation. Its operational transposition requires mediation: translation into territorial diagnostics, selection of locally relevant indicators, appropriation by non-specialist stakeholders in statistics, and articulation with national regulatory frameworks (health plans, strategies for reducing social health inequalities, etc.).

7. Multiple Choice Questions — 5 questions

Part 1 — Multiple Choice Questions without answers

Question 1 (pp. 36‑40)

What conclusion does the report draw about the evolution of household incomes in OECD countries after 2019?

a) A marked and widespread decline in real incomes across all countries

b) Stability or slight increase, thanks to public interventions during crises

c) A strong increase but concentrated among the wealthiest households

d) A decline in incomes in rich countries and an increase in less wealthy countries

Question 2 (pp. 47‑52)

How has life expectancy changed on average in the OECD between 2019 and 2022?

a) It has significantly increased in the majority of countries

b) It has remained strictly unchanged despite the pandemic

c) It has slightly decreased compared to 2019, while remaining higher than in 2010

d) It has collapsed by more than 5 years in most countries

Question 3 (pp. 79‑84)

What does the reduction of certain well-being gaps between age or gender groups over the last decade mean?

a) That all categories have seen their well-being increase at the same rate

b) That previously disadvantaged groups have consistently improved their situation

c) That gaps sometimes reduce because better-off groups are deteriorating faster

d) That the gaps have disappeared for all dimensions of well-being

Question 4 (p. 62-66)

What main signal does the report send about natural capital in OECD countries?

a) Climate and biodiversity targets for 2030 will be met without additional efforts

b) Emissions and biodiversity loss are no longer a major issue

c) Progress in recycling and protected areas has accelerated significantly since 2019

d) Emissions remain insufficiently reduced and climate and biodiversity risks are increasing

Question 5 (p. 24-25, 96-105)

What is the purpose of the OECD Well-being Framework as presented in the report?

a) To evaluate only the growth of real GDP per capita

b) To measure only the state of the health system and medical expenditures

c) To comprehensively understand current well-being, inequalities, and resources for the future

d) To rank countries according to their level of public debt

Part 2 — Commented correction

Question 1 (pp. 36‑40)

What conclusion does the report draw about the evolution of household incomes in OECD countries after 2019?

✅ Correct answer: b) A stability or slight increase, thanks to public interventions during crises

📝 Explanation: The report explains that average disposable incomes have not significantly fallen compared to pre-COVID levels in any OECD country, thanks to support measures for households and businesses implemented in response to the pandemic and the cost of living crisis.

Question 2 (pp. 47‑52)

How has life expectancy changed on average in the OECD between 2019 and 2022?

✅ Correct answer: c) It has slightly decreased compared to 2019, while remaining higher than in 2010

📝 Explanation: The report presents an example of trend interpretation showing that life expectancy, which had increased since 2010, fell after 2019 due to excess mortality related to COVID-19, but remains overall higher than at the beginning of the decade.

Question 3 (pp. 79‑84)

What does the reduction of certain well-being gaps between age or gender groups over the last decade mean?

✅ Correct answer: c) That gaps sometimes narrow because better-off groups deteriorate faster

📝 Explanation: Chapter 3 shows that some gaps have narrowed not because everyone is improving, but because previously advantaged groups (notably young people for subjective well-being and men for certain emotional aspects) have seen their outcomes deteriorate more than others.

Question 4 (p. 62-66)

What main signal does the report send about natural capital in OECD countries?

✅ Correct answer: d) Emissions remain insufficiently reduced and climate and biodiversity risks are increasing.

📝 Explanation: The report indicates that, despite an average decrease in emissions per capita, no country is expected to meet climate targets alone, that 15% of the population is exposed to extreme heatwaves, and that biodiversity indices continue to deteriorate in most countries.

Question 5 (p. 24-25, 96-105)

What is the purpose of the OECD Well-being Framework as presented in the report?

✅ Correct answer: c) To understand current well-being, inequalities, and resources for the future in an integrated manner.

📝 Explanation: The Well-being Framework distinguishes between current well-being (material conditions, quality of life, social relationships, inequalities) and resources for future well-being (natural, human, economic, and social capital), in order to illuminate trade-offs between the short and long term and guide cross-cutting approaches.

8. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. Who is the main audience of the report and how can local actors use it? (pp. 3‑6, 20‑24)

   The report is primarily aimed at the governments of OECD countries, but it provides a framework and indicators that can be used by local authorities, health agencies, social and medico-social structures to build well-being diagnostics, monitor inequalities, and argue for priorities in prevention and social cohesion.

2. How does the report measure well-being beyond traditional economic indicators? (pp. 24‑26)

   The Well-being Framework includes 11 dimensions of current well-being (income, employment, housing, health, skills, environment, life satisfaction, security, time, social connections, civic participation) and four types of capital for the future (natural, human, economic, social), with indicators distributed according to population groups.

3. What does the report tell us about the impact of the cost of living crisis on vulnerable households? (p. 36-46)

   It shows that, despite the stability of average incomes, the burden of housing and energy costs has increased for many low-income households, and the proportion of people reporting financial difficulties remains close to one in five, after a decade of progress that has significantly slowed.

4. What are the main signals regarding mental health and negative emotions? (p. 52-59)

   The report highlights the end of the decline in 'deaths of despair', the rise in physical pain, the increase or stagnation of feelings of worry and sadness since the pandemic, and sometimes high levels of loneliness, particularly concerning for younger generations.

5. How do inequalities in well-being by education level manifest concretely? (p. 89-92)

   People with tertiary education consistently achieve better outcomes in employment, health, social connections, and subjective well-being than those with lower qualifications, and these gaps are generally significant and persistent, reinforcing the role of education as a central determinant of well-being.

6. What elements of the report are useful for integrating climate issues into health and social cohesion policies? (p. 62-66, 30-31)

   Data on exposure to heatwaves, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and biodiversity help to argue the links between climate, health, territorial inequalities, and social vulnerabilities, and to frame local prevention actions within a sustainability perspective.

7. How is the issue of trust in institutions and social capital addressed? (pp. 70-73, 30-31)

   The report tracks the evolution of trust in governments, interpersonal trust, and the perceived integrity of the public sector, showing an increase during the acute phase of the pandemic followed by a decline, highlighting the need to strengthen participation, transparency, and equity to support transformative policies.

9. Rewriting in Easy-to-Read Language 

Title: Well-being in OECD Countries

1. Context and Situation

People are experiencing several crises at the same time.

There was the financial crisis, then COVID-19.

Today, there is rising prices and the effects of climate.

The report looks at whether people's lives are improving or deteriorating.

It talks about money, work, health, but also social connections.

It also looks at what is being prepared for future generations.

2. What the report provides

The report provides many comparable figures between countries.

It shows what was better before 2019 and what has changed since.

It helps to see which groups are more vulnerable than others.

It distinguishes between well-being today and resources for tomorrow.

Professionals can use it for their local diagnostics.

They can choose the priorities for their prevention actions.

Key points in Easy to Read Language

1. Income and employment

   In many countries, work and average incomes are holding.

   States have helped households during recent crises.

   But poor families pay more for housing and energy.

   Many people still say they struggle to make ends meet.

2. Health, mental health and young people

   Life expectancy has slightly decreased after COVID-19.

   Deaths by suicide, alcohol or drugs are no longer decreasing.

   School results in maths and reading have declined.

   People report feeling more pain, more fear and more sadness.

   Young people are often more affected by these difficulties.

3. Inequalities between groups

   Inequalities remain strong between the rich and the poor.

   Less educated people have more health and employment problems.

   Differences between women and men sometimes decrease.

   But sometimes they decrease because some are doing worse than before.

4. Climate and resources for tomorrow

   Greenhouse gas emissions are decreasing too slowly.

   More and more people are experiencing severe heatwaves.

   Biodiversity continues to degrade in many countries.

   Trust between people and with the state is fragile.

5. Usefulness for local action

   The report provides a framework for thinking about well-being in a holistic way.

   It helps to choose indicators to monitor inequalities.

   Local actors can adapt these ideas to their territory.

   They can connect health, social issues, climate, and community participation.