4. A victim/survivor-centric governance and service culture for ending gender-based violence

In this report, “gender” and “gender-based violence” are interpretated by countries taking into account international obligations, as well as national legislation.

This chapter focuses on the elements of a victim/survivor-centric governance and service culture – under the Culture Pillar of the OECD GBV framework (OECD, 2021[1]), which focuses on understanding and implementing victims’/survivors’ needs and interests, ensuring the accessibility of public services and building capacities of service providers who directly interact with victims/survivors. This pillar emphasises the importance of tackling the root causes of GBV through prevention initiatives that engage men and boys. It encapsulates the need for system-wide changes to initiatives, institutional attitudes and beliefs, and governmental priorities, in order to effectively respond to GBV. Systems and frameworks whose policies do not approach GBV with intersectional, trauma- and violence-informed and victim/survivor-centric policies and programming will fail to create a culture where GBV can be properly addressed.

An important element of a victim/survivor-centred approach is to empower victims/survivors. This can be achieved in many ways; for example, by using information and communications technology (ICT) to deliver information and skills training to prevent or respond to acts of violence; making relevant information available in a range of formats and easily accessible mediums; and building legal literacy among young people in order to challenge harmful gender norms and stereotypes in support of social change towards equality and inclusion (OECD, 2021[1]). The responses to the 2022 OECD GBV survey reveal good practice examples of different approaches to empowering victims/survivors (see Box ‎4.2).

Building trust is key to empowering victims/survivors, removing their social barriers to accessing services, and engaging them in GBV plans, programming design and implementation. A good practice is for governments to partner with non-governmental institutions that have already built bonds with victims/survivors. Estonia offers one example, introducing a two-year project from 2019-2021 for prevention of GBV to develop efficient law enforcement systems free of gender stereotypes. It was financed by the Active Citizens Fund and implemented by the NGO Estonian Institute for Open Society Research. The central objective of the project was to develop a law enforcement culture and communication standards free of gender stereotypes and intended to increase victims’ trust in law enforcement agencies and to encourage engagement with them. The main target group of the project consisted of law enforcement specialists encountering IPV: prosecutors, judges, barristers, police detectives and trainers-lecturers who arranged lectures (courses) on intimate partner violence to the specialists in the fields mentioned.

Some countries have shown that trust-building can also be achieved through awareness campaigns. In Lithuania, for example, the Ministry of Social Security and Labour funded a public awareness-raising campaign, “Negaliu tylėti”, in 2021, intended to deter domestic violence by introducing the public to different types of domestic violence (emotional, physical, sexual, economic). The campaign consisted of eight TV shows featuring the victims of domestic violence sharing their stories. Four short videos were shown in outdoor advertisements in cities throughout Lithuania, as well as on Facebook pages and news outlets. The latest national survey on domestic violence, conducted in 2022 with women who had experienced domestic violence, reported a slight increase in the number of people contacting the police and other legal institutions after experiencing domestic violence: in 2022, 17% of respondents indicated that they had contacted such institutions, compared to only 15% in 2020. The campaign put great emphasis on harmful gender stereotypes and gender roles in the family as one of the main causes of (intimate partner) violence. Restrictive masculinities, defined as social constructs that confine men to their traditional role as the dominant gender group, may have direct negative consequences on women in the private sphere, including sexual violence (OECD, 2021[3]).

Enabling whole-of state GBV frameworks with a victim/survivor-centred focus includes finding multiple ways to engage survivors in elements of its design and implementation. As noted in the previous chapter, one way of engaging survivors is to involve them in surveys and research, ultimately using the lessons learned to make evidence-based changes to existing frameworks. Population-based surveys are one type. These are not only valuable sources for data on GBV, but also investigate the subjective, user-centred experience and focus on personal, organisational or shared problems and experiences (e.g. in communities or in specific vulnerable groups, such as with victims/survivors of GBV) (OECD, 2020[4]). Respondent countries have recognised the importance of understanding the subjective experiences of victims/survivors, but some forms of population-based surveys are underutilised and insufficiently disseminated (see Section 3.2.4 in Chapter 3) (OECD, 2020[4]).

Service delivery with a victim/survivor-centred approach also needs to provide a continuum of support tailored to the needs of a particular group of victims/survivors (also see Chapter 5). Building capacity among service providers and policymakers designing and delivering such services is also essential. The relevant actors need training, guidance and timely advice for their role in the GBV framework. It is particularly important that those who work directly with victims/survivors of GBV, including healthcare providers or social workers, receive up-to-date training on early detection, risk management and prevention of GBV (OECD, 2021[1]). Police officers need training if they are to respond effectively to GBV. They are often the first responders to GBV cases, and the quality of their intervention is heavily dependent on the risk identification and assessment that have been carried out. Recognising and identifying cases of GBV and domestic violence is critical, since police reports are the most common source of administrative evidence used by governments to collect data on IPV and femicide/feminicide (see Chapter 6). Responses to the 2022 OECD GBV Survey reveal that most OECD member countries conduct capacity-building, mostly with first responders and service providers. Such activities range from one-on-one virtual and in-person training to direct engagement with the non-governmental GBV sector (see Chapter 5).

Another way to enhance capacity-building for a whole-of-state GBV framework is to build a network of stakeholders/specialists involved in GBV service delivery. This can increase the ability to provide evidence-based preventative, safe and supportive services tailored to the needs of a particular group of victims/victims Box ‎4.3.

Other innovative ways to implement capacity-building activities with a victim-centred approach is by including both GBV victims/survivors and perpetrators. Latvia outlined one promising example in its 2022 OECD GBV Survey response. In 2021, a summer school for social workers was created to engage both with adults who had been victims of violence and with those who had committed violence. Based on the lessons learned, a social work methodology on working with both victims and perpetrators of violence was developed and has now been introduced.

While programme and service funding are important in the GBV framework, several key areas require dedicated resources, including: shelter and housing, targeted and readily available counselling, and healthcare and justice services (also see Chapter 5 on Integrated Service Delivery). Such services should be properly resourced at any time, but particularly in times of crisis, to ensure that they are accessible to victims/survivors, who are often among the most affected and at risk, for example during pandemics and economic recessions (OECD, 2021[1]). To address this, countries can utilise a gender-based analysis in all budgeting decisions, including in creating crisis and emergency plans.

The 2015 OECD Recommendation of the Council on Gender Equality in Public Life (GEPL Recommendation) (OECD, 2016[5]) notes that engaging relevant governmental and non-governmental stakeholders is key to effectively implementing a whole-of-government gender equality and mainstreaming strategy (OECD, 2018[6]). Stakeholders inside and outside the government should be consulted and involved (through forum roundtables, online consultations, in-person systematic consultations, etc.) in developing policy and actions. Enlisting a wide range of stakeholders is vital to account for the intersectional experiences of women and girls and to build a service culture centred on victims/survivors.

Several countries reported engaging stakeholders at different stages of the policy cycle, for different purposes. For example, Australia, Belgium, Costa Rica, Greece, Hungary, Japan, Latvia, Republic of Türkiye and Sweden reported engaging a wide range of stakeholders in developing specific GBV plans or strategies. Belgium, Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, Korea, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Mexico reported holding consultations to validate their overall strategic vision on GBV, particularly regarding the implementation of relevant international and regional standards and instruments (e.g. the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women and the Istanbul Convention). Certain countries, including Belgium, Italy and Portugal, engaged non-governmental stakeholders in monitoring and evaluating their national policies, strategies and/or action plans (Box ‎4.5).

The stakeholders most commonly engaged by respondent countries in GBV policy design are civil society organisations: 54% of respondent countries (14 out of 26) consulted NGOs specialising in gender equality, violence prevention or youth. Professionals working in either law enforcement or justice systems were consulted by 19% of respondent countries (5 out of 26) during policy design. Only a few countries engaged practitioners who interact with victims/survivors in their work: 19% (5 out of 26) of respondent countries engaged healthcare professionals and 8% (2 out of 26) engaged shelters or care centres. Healthcare practitioners and professionals working in shelters understand the everyday experience of victims/survivors, making their engagement in policy design essential for a victim/survivor centred culture.

Civil society organisations were the stakeholders most often reported to have been engaged in policy design, but scope remains for increasing their involvement. Nearly half of the countries surveyed reported that they had not consulted such stakeholders in developing GBV policies. Excluding women’s rights NGOs and civil society in drafting of policies has also been identified as a worrying trend by GREVIO, the independent expert body responsible for monitoring implementation of the Istanbul Convention. Its Mid-term Horizontal Review of GREVIO baseline evaluation reports found that across parties to the Convention, several countries had unstable institutional frameworks that did not allow for NGOs to be involved effectively in the design and implementation of policies in GBV (Council of Europe, 2022[7]). Countries that regularly consult NGOs in policy making also struggle with formalising their role in carrying out policies (GREVIO, 2022[8]). The report also found that in most parties to the Convention, some public funding was allocated to NGOs, but not enough to ensure a sustainable level of funding for their work (GREVIO, 2022[8]).

Although countries reported high levels of stakeholder engagement while developing whole-of-state approaches to GBV, victims/survivors themselves were reported to be the least common stakeholder engaged. While engaging victims/survivors is a key pillar of creating a victim/survivor-centric governance and service culture, it can often be difficult to find ways to interact with them directly and involve them in policy design. Each victim/survivor has a unique experience, with various approaches to healing from trauma. While there is little research focusing on the trauma healing processes of victims/survivors of GBV, there is some growing evidence on the positive effects of post-traumatic growth (Sinko and Saint Arnault, 2019[9]). This approach includes a focus on new, positive experiences that help reconnect victims/survivors with their lives, their loved ones and society at large. Effective healing processes may include sharing experiences and engaging in the fight against GBV, which might include involvement in policy making, but not all victims/survivors wish to do so. It is thus important to find various avenues to engage with advocates for victims/survivors, including advocates for victims of femicide/feminicide, such as NGOs specialising in gender equality and gender-based violence. As for engaging stakeholders who represent victims/survivors’ interests, OECD respondent countries cited some persistent barriers. These included a lack of stable and long-term funding of NGOs, and an overall lack of human resources, as well as dedicated time for stakeholder engagement. Only one country, Lithuania, reported using interviews conducted by NGOs to collect GBV data during the COVID-19 pandemic, while five countries reported using research conducted by academics and NGOs. One country reported challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic in trying to organise consultations with external stakeholders. These were mostly resolved by co-ordinating key processes via teleconference and other technologies. While co-ordination is essential for effective stakeholder engagement, several OECD respondent countries reported that the lack of ways to co-ordinate with stakeholders resulted in suboptimal interactions. In general, governments still struggle to involve stakeholders systematically. They tend only to be only consulted once proposals and laws have been drafted. Stakeholder input needs to be prioritised at the early stages of the policy cycle (OECD, 2021[10]).

Another essential element for a culture enabling whole-of-state GBV frameworks with a victim/survivor-centred focus is the need to consider the impact of intersectionality. Critical gaps in services and policies can arise from a failure to engage in intersectional analysis. The experiences of women and girls differ given their personal characteristics and individual circumstances, including the intersection of, race, ethnicity, age, class, religion, indigeneity, national origin, migrant or refugee status, sexual orientation, disability and gender identity. Access to justice and service delivery can be difficult for migrants, especially for recent immigrants and for those whose immigration status is irregular. This may be due to a number of factors, including language barriers, a lack of understanding of the justice system, cultural differences, monetary issues, and fear of the consequences of engaging with government agencies. Planning should incorporate an intersectional lens (OECD, 2021[1]).

The OECD Survey asked the member countries whether the central government had any formal tools or practices to account for the intersectional experiences of victims/survivors in GBV policies, programmes or services. The answers revealed a significant divide, with 43% of countries (10 out of 23) answering in the affirmative, and 56% of countries (13 out of 23) responding that they did not.

The responses revealed several main ways governments account for the intersectional experiences of victims/survivors in GBV policies, programmes or services. These include:

  1. 1. including intersectional questions and awareness in population-based surveys (e.g. in Switzerland, see Box ‎4.6)

  2. 2. integrating GBV objectives in other specific plans dealing with other type of crimes or vulnerabilities (e.g. Greece, see Chapter 3)

  3. 3. disaggregating administrative data (e.g. Costa Rica, see Box ‎4.6)

  4. 4. analysing data from (multisectoral) service delivery (e.g. in Portugal and the United States; see Box ‎4.6., also see Chapter 3 on cross-sector and inter-ministerial approaches)

  5. 5. engaging interest groups in their policy strategies and programming implementation (examples in Box ‎4.3 and Box ‎4.4)

  6. 6. mentioning interest groups in their policy strategies and programming implementation.

Responses to the OECD Survey show that the most common special interest groups that GBV policies, programmes or services account for are youth (aged 15-25) and children (people under 15), followed by migrant populations, gay/lesbian/bisexual and trans/gender diverse people and racial minority groups. Fewer countries included services for low-income populations, the elderly, and ethnic and rural groups. Only one country, Sweden, reported including measures in national policies, strategies and/or action plans either for harmful abuse (e.g. drug abuse) populations or for economically vulnerable groups.

Despite many reported good practices on introducing an intersectional victim/survivor-centric approach, the 2022 GBV survey also noted major challenges. One is a persistent lack of data and disaggregated and intersectional data in particular. Countries stressed that the data can be used to report on results or trends based on one level of disaggregation across many variables, but that it becomes increasingly difficult to combine these variables of interest to conduct meaningful intersectional analyses.

GBV is rooted in gender inequality, and it is thus necessary to change harmful social and cultural norms and attitudes that uphold discriminatory policies and practices. Research findings from the International Men and Gender Equality Survey shows that factors contributing to GBV include children experiencing violence, economic and work stress, attitudes towards gender equality, conflict settings and alcohol abuse (ICRW, 2011[11]). Understanding the dynamics of masculinity is vital for understanding the behaviour of boys and men. GBV prevention efforts should challenge and change harmful norms and attitudes, build awareness and promote pre-emptive intervention (OECD, 2021[1]).

Prevention efforts engaging men and boys should be informed by a clear set of principles promoting women’s and girls’ rights and furthering gender equality. Interventions considered gender-transformative, challenging and aiming to transform gender roles, proved to be more effective than efforts that are simply gender-sensitive or gender-neutral. (WHO, 2007[12]) Prevention programming should aim to challenge behaviour influenced by harmful conceptions of masculinity. Organisations working in gender equality can provide valuable insight during strategic planning processes, to create concrete interventions. Prevention programming that promotes positive constructions of manhood and highlights the harm of violence on men’s lives has the potential to tackle root causes of GBV (see example in Box ‎4.7). The intersectional experiences of masculinity also need to be taken into account for more effective programming that responds to the different needs of men and boys for more effective programming (Peacock and Barker, 2014[13]). These programmes might highlight the fact that men and boys can experience GBV themselves and seek to reduce the stigma that inhibits them from reporting their experiences to their community and authorities (OECD, 2021[1]).

Responding to the OECD GBV Survey, member countries acknowledged the importance of engaging boys and men in reducing GBV figures in the short, medium, and long term. Of countries that responded, 60% (14 out of 23) reported active GBV-related programming and/or services provided by the central/federal government to engage men and/or boys in ending and/or preventing GBV.

The type of services, activities and interventions countries have introduced to engage men and boys in preventing GBV ranged from early intervention campaigns, educational activities and training workshops to counselling services and therapeutic programmes. Some OECD countries reported engaging men and boys in at-risk populations (e.g. in violent environments and those prone to be either GBV victims and/or perpetrators), while others reported engaging men and boys more broadly (see Box ‎4.8).

Evidence suggests that engaging perpetrators in prevention programmes – alongside intervention and protection for women – is essential in reducing intimate partner violence. However, only 43% of respondent countries (10 out of 23) reported engaging perpetrators in their prevention interventions, revealing a major gap in prevention efforts in several responding countries. Sustained, long-term engagement with perpetrators is now seen as a key element for effective service delivery. Promising examples of countries engaging with perpetrators include Greece, Iceland and Sweden (Box ‎4.9).

Studies and evaluations of the long-term effects of policies and programmes designed to engage men and boys on GBV are limited (OECD, 2021[1]), but some countries have started to evaluate prevention interventions. Sweden offers one example, where the government has allocated funds to violence prevention as part of the National Preventions Programme. Organisations, municipalities and regions can apply for funding from the Swedish Gender Equality Agency to develop their violence-prevention efforts, including evaluating such efforts. For example, the Swedish National Agency for Education has evaluated the organisation MÄN’s version of Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP), a school-based violence prevention programme. The evaluation acknowledges that it is difficult to draw general conclusions, due to several limitations, but that small positive effects on students’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviour have been observed. MVP has also been evaluated by Stockholm University. In the quantitative part of this evaluation, it appears that to a limited extent, MVP has succeeded in making overall positive changes in students’ attitudes and behaviour.

OECD member countries have taken steps towards engaging men and boys to prevent and address GBV, but an important gap remains in evaluating the impact of GBV and these measures, which has resulted in a lack of information gaps on their effectiveness. This may also limit the data available for designing effective long-term prevention policies and measures.

Emergency and crisis situations increase women’s risks of violence, exploitation, abuse and harassment. However, emergency and crisis situations can also serve as a catalyst to leverage a victim/survivor-centred culture, improving the engagement of victims’/survivors’ in designing and implementing policies and programming on GBV. Changes may include encouraging the design of services tailored to the particular needs of victims/survivors (i.e. taking into account an intersectional analysis), improving appropriate service delivery (through communication, co-operation and co-ordination) for GBV victims/survivors, and enhancing GBV prevention (e.g. by engaging boys and men).

During emergencies, the need for a rapid response often means that governments have limited time to consult stakeholders in developing preliminary policy measures (OECD, 2021[1]). Accounting for the intersectional backgrounds in the experience of women and girls, however, is particularly important at times of emergency and crisis. Of the countries responding, 78% (18 out of 23) reported consulting or engaging external stakeholders as part of their GBV-related responses to COVID-19. In the Netherlands, the government engaged directly with local shelters to ensure a two-way flow of timely information between the policymakers and the victims/survivors service providers. However, only two countries, Australia and the United Kingdom, reported engaging victims of GBV as part of their response to GBV during the pandemic. Australia’s virtual consultations with victims/survivors in the development of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children (2022-2032) also took into account the pandemic context. These consultations brought together almost 400 delegates, including victims/survivors of GBV, to discuss a series of key issues to improve outcomes for victims/survivors of all backgrounds, including LGBTQIA+ and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (National Summit on Women's Safety, 2022[16]).

As noted, a broad consensus has emerged in accounting for the intersectional experiences of victims/survivors in GBV policies, programmes or services.

However, this collective engagement to reflect intersectional experiences of GBV victims in policies, programmes and services is not as evident in times of crisis. Few countries reported targeted measures to prevent or respond to GBV for specific groups of women during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some reported that the targeted measures implemented during the pandemic were related mostly to the translation of policies and programming into several languages.

A promising practice in this regard emerged in Iceland, where the task force against domestic violence and violence against children during COVID-19 paid special attention to vulnerable individuals, including those with migrant backgrounds, disabilities or old age. The department of police intelligence at the National Police Commissioner published two reports on violence against people with disabilities and pensioners, with recommendations on actions to take. Stakeholder consultations were held, and the recommendations were reported to have been followed up with funding for different actions and by mounting public awareness campaigns (Government of Iceland, 2021[17]).

  • Engaging victims/survivors and relevant stakeholders: Governments should encourage a victim/survivor-centred focus, involving efforts to engage with victims/survivors in policy design. Victims/survivors and relevant stakeholders both inside and outside the government should be consulted and involved, through forum roundtables, online consultations and in-person, systematic consultations, when developing and implementing policies, goals and actions.

  • Engaging men and boys: Prevention efforts should find ways to engage men and boys to challenge and change harmful norms and attitudes, build awareness and promote women’s and girls’ rights and further gender equality.

  • Working with perpetrators: When appropriate, prevention of recidivism should include working with the perpetrators, in particular in IPV situations, as it can reduce the risk of falling back into patterns of GBV.

  • Including intersectionality: Countries should engage in intersectional analysis in GBV response, to avoid critical gaps in services and policies. Data collection, of administrative data and population-based surveys, should be disaggregated by such factors as race, ethnicity, age, class, religion, indigeneity, national origin, migrant or refugee status, sexual orientation, disability and gender identity.

  • Capacity-building: Countries should dedicate adequate resources to build the capacity of service providers who directly interact with victims/survivors and to ensure their initial and continued training on early detection, risk management and prevention of GBV. Service delivery needs to take into account the subjective experience of victims/survivors, through data collection, and respond to their needs and interests.

  • A victim/survivor-centric approach at times of crisis: Countries should maintain a victim/survivor-centric culture at times of crisis, by ensuring that relevant stakeholders and victims/survivors are engaged in GBV programming.


[7] Council of Europe (2022), Mid-term horizontal review of GREVIO baseline evaluation reports, Council of Europe, https://rm.coe.int/prems-010522-gbr-grevio-mid-term-horizontal-review-rev-february-2022/1680a58499 (accessed on 4 October 2022).

[17] Government of Iceland (2021), Summary of Government Actions against Gender-based and Sexual Violence and Harassment, https://www.government.is/library/01-Ministries/Prime-Ministrers-Office/Summary%20of%20Government%20Actions%20against%20Gender-based%20and%20Sexual%20violence%20and%20Harrassment%20.pdf.

[2] Government of Switzerland (2022), The Federal Council adopts a national action plan for the implementation of the Istanbul Convention, https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/media-releases.msg-id-89386.html (accessed on 13 March 2023).

[8] GREVIO (2022), Mid-term Horizontal Review of GREVIO baseline evaluation reports, https://rm.coe.int/prems-010522-gbr-grevio-mid-term-horizontal-review-rev-february-2022/1680a58499 (accessed on 13 March 2023).

[11] ICRW (2011), International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES), International Center for Research on Women, https://www.icrw.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/International-Men-and-Gender-Equality-Survey-IMAGES.pdf.

[15] MenCare (n.d.), About MenCare, https://men-care.org/about-mencare/ (accessed on 13 March 2023).

[16] National Summit on Women’s Safety (2022), Official website of the National Summit on Women’s Safety, https://regonsite.eventsair.com/national-summit-on-womens-safety/ (accessed on 13 March 2023).

[1] OECD (2021), Eliminating Gender-based Violence: Governance and Survivor/Victim-centred Approaches, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/42121347-en.

[10] OECD (2021), Evidence-based policy making and stakeholder engagement, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/chapter-two-evidence-based-policy-making-and-stakeholder-engagement.pdf.

[3] OECD (2021), Man Enough? Measuring Masculine Norms to Promote Women’s Empowerment, Social Institutions and Gender Index, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6ffd1936-en.

[4] OECD (2020), Gender Equality in Colombia: Access to Justice and Politics at the Local Level, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b956ef57-en.

[6] OECD (2018), OECD Toolkit on Mainstreaming and Implementing Gender Equality, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/toolkit-for-mainstreaming-and-implementing-gender-equality.pdf.

[5] OECD (2016), 2015 OECD Recommendation of the Council on Gender Equality in Public Life, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264252820-en.

[13] Peacock, D. and G. Barker (2014), “Working with Men and Boys to Prevent Gender-based Violence”, Men and Masculinities, Vol. 17/5, pp. 578-599, https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184x14558240.

[9] Sinko, L. and D. Saint Arnault (2019), “Finding the Strength to Heal: Understanding Recovery After Gender-Based Violence”, Violence Against Women, Vol. 26/12-13, pp. 1616-1635, https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219885185.

[14] UN Women et al. (2019), Justice for Women: High-level Group Report, https://www.justice.sdg16.plus/_files/ugd/6c192f_b931d73c685f47808922b29c241394f6.pdf.

[12] WHO (2007), Engaging Men and Boys in Changing Gender-based Inequity in Health Evidence from Programme Interventions, World Health Organization, Geneva.

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

© OECD 2023

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at https://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.