The coronavirus crisis was still very present in 2021, with major consequences for
public health and the care sector. Almost 40,000 people died of COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021.
Initial measures were aimed primarily at curbing the spread of the virus so as not
to overwhelm the health care system. As the pandemic persisted, the focus increasingly
shifted to the economic impact of the measures. With a growth of 5 percent the Dutch
economy recovered remarkably rapidly from the coronavirus recession in 2021. Despite
multiple lockdowns, overall GDP was 1 percent higher than in the pre-coronavirus year
of 2019.
The pandemic continues to take a major toll on the population: the trend in mental
health was already declining, and in 2021 the proportion of Dutch people considered
to be mentally healthy fell further by 3.2 percentage points to 84.9 percent. Measures
such as lockdowns and curfews limited the number of contacts between people and increased
the risk of unequal opportunities, loneliness and mental problems. Particularly in
the final months of 2021, more attention was paid to social dislocation as a result
of the measures. There were growing calls for informed assessments with more focus
on the longer term.
In the longer term society will also face other fundamental choices in which well-being
is central. The social challenges are closely related: climate and energy, nitrogen
and conservation, housebuilding, poverty reduction and social inclusion, innovation
and competitiveness. Ambitious targets have been set in many of these areas, often
within the agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United
Nations (UN) for the period 2015–2030. In the Netherlands too this agenda provides
one of the main policy frameworks.
CBS publishes the Monitor of Well-being and the SDGs every year on Accountability
Day at the request of the Dutch Government. This monitor not only presents the state
of well-being and quality of life ‘here and now’ and how well-being is distributed
among the population groups, but also looks at the effects of the pursuit of well-being
on future generations (‘later’) and people in other countries (‘elsewhere’). CBS measures
well-being in accordance with the recommendations and the framework adopted in the
CES measurement system of the UNECE.
Well-being ‘here and now’
Well-being in the Netherlands today is described on the basis of eight themes: subjective
well-being, material well-being, health, labour and leisure time, housing, society,
safety and the environment.
The development of well-being ‘here and now’ over the 2014–2021 trend period has been
positive. This can be seen in the well-being trends wheel. The innermost ring of the
well-being trends (BWTs) provides information on the trend in 2014–2021. The outer
ring shows the change over the last reporting year compared to the previous year.
Per capita GDP is used as a reference variable in the wheels.
Explanation of well-being trend wheels
The inner ring of the well-being trends (BWTs) provides information on the long-term
trend (medium-term trend based on available data points in the years 2014–2021). The outer
ring shows the average change in the last reporting year relative to the previous
year. Move the mouse over an indicator in the figure to see what it measures. Clicking
through gives access to further information on the trend in the Netherlands and the
position relative to the other EU countries. Where possible, data are included from
1995 onwards.
For trends and the most recent annual changes the colours show the following:
For positions, the colours mean as follows:
GREEN
GREEN
The indicator is moving in the direction associated with an increase in well-being.
The Netherlands is in the top quartile of the EU ranking.
GREY
GREY
No significant rise or fall in the indicator.
The Netherlands is in the middle of the EU ranking.
RED
RED
The indicator is moving in the direction associated with a decrease in well-being.
The Netherlands is in the bottom quartile of the EU ranking.
Trends in well-being: Here and now
Trends and positions
Ten of the 28 indicators in this wheel are moving towards an increase in well-being
(green segment in the innermost ring). For six of these 10 indicators the Netherlands
is again among the leaders in the EU27: median disposable income, long-term unemployment,
net labour participation, satisfaction with work (employees), trust in institutions
and trust in people. (See the bars at the bottom of the figure).
Two indicators in the wheel show a decrease in well-being (trend is red): contact
with family, friends or neighbours and voluntary work. The Netherlands is nevertheless
highly placed in these areas compared to the other EU countries.
On the themes of subjective well-being, material well-being, health, labour and leisure
time, housing, safety and the environment, well-being has risen (green) or the trends
remain neutral (grey).
For the theme of society the picture is mixed, with two trends pointing to a decline
in well-being.
In the case of five indicators the trend has reversed. The previously red trend for
overweight population and voice and accountability has turned into a neutral trend
(grey). Satisfaction with work among employees now shows a rising trend. These are
improvements. In the development of standards and values and people often feeling
unsafe in their own neighbourhood the trend was positive but is now neutral. No surveys
on standards and values were conducted during the coronavirus period, so no new data
could be added to the series.
Latest development
Median income, household consumption and trust in people grew relatively strongly
compared to the previous year, while the percentage of people who were victims of
crime fell. This all increases well-being.
By contrast, there was a significant increase in the share of the population experiencing
environmental problems and decreases in satisfaction with housing, trust in institutions
and participation in voluntary work compared to the previous year. This represents
a decrease in well-being.
Well-being ‘later’
The choices that the Dutch make collectively ‘here and now’ have consequences for
future generations in the Netherlands (‘later’). After all, all manner of resources
(‘capital’) are needed to maintain quality of life. Well-being ‘later’ concerns the
resources that future generations can access in order to achieve at least the same
level of well-being as that of the current generation. The amounts of economic, natural,
human and social capital must at least remain constant over the long term to achieve
sustainability.
The wheel representing well-being ‘later’ clearly shows future well-being coming under
greater pressure than current well-being.
Trends in well-being: Later
Trends and positions
For seven of the 22 indicators in the ‘later’ wheel the trend shows a decrease in
well-being: average household debt, green and blue space, fauna on land, fresh water
and marsh fauna, surface water with good chemical quality, groundwater abstraction
and cumulative CO2 emissions. By comparison, for well-being ‘here and now’ this is the case for two of
the total of 28 indicators.
Declines are particularly evident in natural capital, as six of the 11 trends are
red.
In the case of human and social capital the indicators show either a rising trend
in well-being or a neutral trend.
The picture is mixed for economic capital.
Compared to other EU countries the Netherlands is mainly positioned in the middle
group or among the laggards. In the case of phosphorus and nitrogen surpluses, cumulative
CO2 emissions and average household debt, the Netherlands is at the bottom of the EU ranking.
Compared to the 2013–2020 period, there are no trend reversals in the sections of
the ‘later’ wheel in 2014–2021.
Latest developments
The installed capacity for renewable electricity has increased sharply compared to
the previous year.
Trust in people is growing strongly.
Trust in institutions has fallen from 2020 to 2021, after a sharp rise in 2020 (6.4 percentage
points).
Well-being ‘elsewhere’
The choices made ‘here and now’ to maintain or increase our well-being have consequences
not only for future generations in the Netherlands (‘later’) but also for people in
other countries (‘elsewhere’). In the wheel showing well-being trends ‘elsewhere’
the flows of income and resources between the Netherlands and other countries are
central.
Trends in well-being: Elsewhere
Trends and positions
In the case of nine of the 20 indicators in this wheel the trend is moving towards
rising well-being: money transfers by non-residents to their country of origin, the
value of total goods imports and more specifically from the continents of Europe,
America, Asia and Oceania, the quantity of imports from the poorest countries (LDCs)
and more specifically the volume of imported fossil energy carriers and non-metal
minerals from these countries.
For nine indicators the trend is neutral.
Only one indicator in the ‘elsewhere’ wheel – imports of biomass – shows a decrease
in well-being. For the country footprint there are insufficient data to determine
the trend.
Some trends have reversed compared to the trend period in the previous monitor (2013–2020).
The trend in the value of total goods imports and the value of goods imports from
Europe in particular has reversed from neutral to rising. These reversals are favourable:
from the perspective of well-being this increases the well-being of the trading partners.
For the volume of metal imports from LDCs the previously rising trend is now neutral.
This reversal is also beneficial, as it means stocks of raw materials in the poorest
countries are being depleted less rapidly. On the other hand a deterioration is also
occurring, with the previously downward trend in the total volume of non-metal mineral
imports turning neutral.
Latest developments
There are notable changes in the most recent year compared to the previous year with
regard to the value of imports from Africa and Oceania. These increase the well-being
of trading partners. The steep decline in the volumes of fossil energy carriers, metals
and biomass imported from the poorest countries is also seen as increasing well-being,
as it means less depletion of natural resources.
Distribution of well-being
Well-being ‘here and now’ is not distributed equally among the population. The visualisation
shows the number of indicators where groups have significantly higher (green dot)
or significantly lower (red dot) well-being than the national average (shown in grey).
Men and women are compared to each other rather than to the average of the population.
Distribution of well-being in most recent available year and relative change from 2019
The dots show for each indicator where population groups have significantly higher (green) or lower (red) well-being than the average for the whole population (grey). The diamonds indicate whether the value for a population group has changed more favourably (green) or more unfavourably (red) than the average for the whole population.
Ordered by colour
Ordered by indicator
Sex
Age
Education level
Migration background
There are many differences particularly in terms of migration background and education
level. Low-skilled people and people with a migration background, both western and
non-western, have a lower level of well-being, while highly educated people and people
without a migration background have a higher level of well-being. The 2022 Monitor
of Well-being continues to use the old classification by migration background (Netherlands,
western migration background, non-western migration background). CBS introduced a
new classification by origin in February 2022.noot1 This new classification will be gradually incorporated into the CBS statistics and
publications. Once the change has been implemented in the source statistics, the new
classification will also be used in the monitor.
At individual level it can be seen that the same people sometimes have an accumulation
of favourable and unfavourable outcomes. Unfavourable outcomes often accumulate in
the case of people with a non-western migration background, low-skilled people and
65–74‑year-olds; an accumulation of positive outcomes is most common among highly
educated people and 45–64‑year-olds.
Compared to 2019, the distribution of well-being has remained broadly unchanged. Relative
declines have nevertheless been recorded among younger age groups, people aged 75
and over and highly educated people.
Percentage of every population group that is located at the top, in the middle or at the bottom of the distribution of well-being, 2021
Sex
18.0%
54.6%
27.4%
18.5%
57.6%
23.9%
Age
19.3%
53.8%
26.9%
18.2%
57.4%
24.4%
15.6%
58.0%
26.4%
17.5%
48.2%
34.4%
18.0%
48.4%
33.7%
26.1%
56.7%
17.2%
11.7%
79.9%
8.4%
Highest completed level of education
31.9%
58.1%
10.1%
17.5%
60.0%
22.5%
10.2%
50.9%
38.9%
Migration background
15.7%
56.3%
28.0%
19.7%
58.3%
22.0%
33.4%
53.1%
13.6%
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
In this monitor, the progress made by the Netherlands in relation to well-being and
the SDGs is measured on the basis of 280 different indicators. For all 17 SDGs the
indicators have been examined to identify trends towards the goal, neutral trends
or movement away from the goal. The position of the Netherlands is also compared to
that of other EU countries.
Trends
The summary figure is based on the indicators for which a medium-term trend (2014–2021)
could be calculated. The figure shows the percentage of indicators moving towards
the goal (green), the proportion showing a neutral trend (grey) and the proportion
moving away from the goal (red).
Trends of indicators measured for each SDGplus
This figure shows the percentage share in the total number of indicators in the dashboard for each SDG.
Ordered by SDG
Ordered by percentage green trends, from high to low
Ordered by percentage red trends, from high to low
41.7%
58.3%
61.5%
23.1%
15.4%
20%
73.3%
6.7%
44.4%
44.4%
11.1%
61.5%
30.8%
7.7%
23.1%
53.8%
23.1%
33.3%
50%
16.7%
33.3%
66.7%
46.7%
46.7%
6.7%
21.4%
50%
28.6%
50%
50%
42.9%
57.1%
31.3%
50%
18.8%
20%
46.7%
33.3%
23.1%
30.8%
46.2%
40%
30%
30%
23.1%
69.2%
7.7%
71.4%
14.3%
14.3%
33.3%
66.7%
8.3%
50%
41.7%
25%
58.3%
16.7%
12.5%
50%
37.5%
75%
25%
75%
25%
71.4%
14.3%
14.3%
61.5%
23.1%
15.4%
61.5%
30.8%
7.7%
50%
50%
46.7%
46.7%
6.7%
44.4%
44.4%
11.1%
42.9%
57.1%
41.7%
58.3%
40%
30%
30%
33.3%
50%
16.7%
33.3%
66.7%
33.3%
66.7%
31.3%
50%
18.8%
25%
58.3%
16.7%
23.1%
53.8%
23.1%
23.1%
30.8%
46.2%
23.1%
69.2%
7.7%
21.4%
50%
28.6%
20%
73.3%
6.7%
20%
46.7%
33.3%
12.5%
50%
37.5%
8.3%
50%
41.7%
23.1%
30.8%
46.2%
8.3%
50%
41.7%
12.5%
50%
37.5%
20%
46.7%
33.3%
40%
30%
30%
21.4%
50%
28.6%
23.1%
53.8%
23.1%
31.3%
50%
18.8%
33.3%
50%
16.7%
25%
58.3%
16.7%
61.5%
23.1%
15.4%
71.4%
14.3%
14.3%
44.4%
44.4%
11.1%
61.5%
30.8%
7.7%
23.1%
69.2%
7.7%
20%
73.3%
6.7%
46.7%
46.7%
6.7%
41.7%
58.3%
33.3%
66.7%
50%
50%
42.9%
57.1%
33.3%
66.7%
75%
25%
A relatively large number of indicators are moving towards the goal, particularly
for SDG 1 (No poverty), SDG 2 (Zero hunger), SDG 4 (Quality education), SDG 5 (Gender
equality) and SDG 13 (Climate action).
For SDG 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure: mobility), SDG 10 (Reduced inequalities),
SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities: housing, and also living environment),
SDG 15 (Life on land) and SDG 16 (Peace, justice and strong institutions: institutions)
we see a relatively large number of indicators moving further away from the goal.
Positions
It is not possible to produce an international comparison for all indicators in the
monitor. The Netherlands’ average position within the EU27 has been determined for
each SDG if the indicator permits.
Position of the Netherlands in the EU for each SDGplus
This figure shows the average position for the indicators in the dashboard for each SDG.
Ordered by SDG
Ordered by position, from high to low
Ordered by position, from low to high
Last in EU
First in EU
0%
100%
81%
46%
71%
72%
60%
48%
42%
72%
69%
49%
79%
71%
76%
55%
54%
50%
67%
41%
31%
44%
59%
80%
90%
90%
81%
80%
79%
76%
72%
72%
71%
71%
69%
67%
60%
59%
55%
54%
50%
49%
48%
46%
44%
42%
41%
31%
31%
41%
42%
44%
46%
48%
49%
50%
54%
55%
59%
60%
67%
69%
71%
71%
72%
72%
76%
79%
80%
81%
90%
Compared to other EU countries the Netherlands is positioned among the leaders for
the following five SDGs: SDG 1 (No poverty), SDG 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure:
knowledge and innovation), SDG 10 (Reduced inequalities: social cohesion), SDG 16
(Peace, justice and strong institutions: institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for
the goals).
For SDG 14 (Life in water) few indicators are available and the position is difficult
to determine.
For SDG 13 (Climate action) the Netherlands is positioned in the middle group. In previous
years the Netherlands was among the laggards for this SDG.
