Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
AbstractAlthough the active ageing concept generally has positive connotations, with expected benefits at the micro, meso and macro levels, the application of this concept in terms of policy making presents challenges and risks to be avoided (for instance, a predominantly productivist interpretation and a top-down imposition with limited possibilities for bottom-up exchanges; or a disregard for the risk of excluding older people with more disadvantaged backgrounds). Two crucial strategies to minimise risks are the implementation of policies by considering and respecting territorial diversity, and the involvement of all the relevant stakeholders in a participatory consultative and co-decisional approach. This paper entwines both strategies together by focusing on Italian in-country differences in terms of active ageing, and employing the Active Ageing Index for policy-making purposes. This activity is part of a governmental national pilot project aimed at promoting multilevel co-managed co-ordination of active ageing policies across Italy. The analysis identified five groups of regions that differ from the classical, geographic and socio-economic division between the North, Centre and South. Additional in-group analyses were conducted to investigate within-cluster differences. This study will inform a large multilevel stakeholder network for evidence-based policies and their monitoring at both the national and regional levels, in line with the perspective of mainstreaming ageing.
Highlights
Deviations in the Capacity and enabling environment for active ageing domain are from −4.7 to 12.4
This study’s main hypothesis was that inequalities across Italian regions in terms of active ageing might occur beyond the classical tripartite (North, Centre, South)
One northern region stands alone as a cluster unto itself; another group includes the remaining northern regions and two central regions; the white cluster includes most of the southern regions, while the remaining two clusters are geographically non-homogeneous groups
Summary
The ISTAT did not release data for 2018, another variable was used concerning the investigation of perceptions on the risk of crime in the area, rather than the perceived feeling about walking alone in the respondent’s local area or neighbourhood after dark. This affected indicator 4.4: for 2018, the variable on internet use ‘in the last three months’ was not released by the ISTAT, so the ‘last 12 months’ were investigated instead. Despite these challenges, it was possible to estimate an index that is similar to the original AAI-EU.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
