São José José Manuel de, Timonen Virpi, Amado Carla Alexandra Filipe, Santos Sérgio Pereira
University of Algarve, Faculty of Economics, Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Portugal.
Trinity College Dublin, School of Social Work and Social Policy, University of Dublin, Ireland.
J Aging Stud. 2017 Jan;40:49-56. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2017.01.001. Epub 2017 Feb 7.
Active ageing and successful ageing are ubiquitous concepts in contemporary societies. In the European Union, active ageing is monitored and promoted chiefly by the Active Ageing Index, a policy tool in use since 2012. We acknowledge that the AAI may contribute to sensitizing people, including policymakers, to the multidimensionality and complexity of the process of "ageing well". However, we note that despite being widely used and promoted, the Active Ageing Index remains under-scrutinized. In this article, we undertake a comprehensive critical analysis of the Active Ageing Index. This critical analysis is supported by the Theory of Model Ageing, the Capability Approach and, to a lesser extent, by relevant literature on composite indices. We conclude that the Active Ageing Index was developed with the paradoxical aim of deriving "the solution" from "the problem". It is an under-theorized and narrowly conceptualized index that contributes to the process of Model Ageing, as its conceptual foundation, and its domains and indicators, convey a certain model of active ageing. This model is expert-based and ingrained with a priori assumptions about the potential of older people, the domains of life and activities they value and how strongly they value them. Finally, the Active Ageing Index measures current achievements, not capabilities (i.e. the opportunity set of achievable "doings" and "beings"), resulting in a valuable but incomplete tool for policymaking purposes. We hope that this critical analysis will initiate a debate on the Active Ageing Index that, in our view, is overdue.
积极老龄化和成功老龄化是当代社会普遍存在的概念。在欧盟,积极老龄化主要通过自2012年起使用的政策工具“积极老龄化指数”进行监测和推广。我们承认,积极老龄化指数可能有助于提高人们(包括政策制定者)对“健康老龄化”过程的多维度性和复杂性的认识。然而,我们注意到,尽管积极老龄化指数被广泛使用和推广,但仍未得到充分审视。在本文中,我们对积极老龄化指数进行了全面的批判性分析。这一批判性分析得到了模型老化理论、能力方法的支持,在较小程度上还得到了关于综合指数的相关文献的支持。我们得出结论,积极老龄化指数的制定有着自相矛盾的目标,即从“问题”中得出“解决方案”。它是一个理论不足且概念狭隘的指数,作为其概念基础,它有助于模型老化过程,其领域和指标传达了某种积极老龄化模式。这种模式以专家为基础,并带有关于老年人潜力、他们重视的生活和活动领域以及重视程度的先验假设。最后,积极老龄化指数衡量的是当前的成就,而非能力(即可实现的“行为”和“存在”的机会集),因此对于政策制定而言,它是一个有价值但并不完整的工具。我们希望这一批判性分析能够引发一场关于积极老龄化指数的辩论,我们认为这场辩论早就该进行了。