Estonian Human Development Report

mote equal opportunities. At the (ethnic) group level, the
most important factor is the decreasing mobility of non-
Estonians as a social group since the restoration of Estonian
independence. No matter what a non-Estonian’s personal
“victory” or “loss” turned out to be as a result of the
transition, not belonging to the indigenous population
was accompanied by a definite stamp of loser in the public
discourse. Therefore the experience of general decreased
mobility by the (ethnic) group tended to affect one’s understanding
and interpretation of the labour market experience.
As demonstrated by our analysis, the assessment of
the equality of opportunities in the labour market may not
be based on personal experience in the labour market, but
may rather reflect the perception of the general decrease
of opportunities resulting from non-affiliation with indigenous
population.
Conclusion
The weaker position of non-Estonians in labour market
competition is only partially reflected in assessments and
expectations for finding work. People without Estonian
citizenship and poor Estonian language skills, who have a
higher risk of unemployment and who have the least likely
prospects of becoming managers or professionals, are also
characterized by distinctly lower demands and expectations
for acceptable work and greater insecurity in the
labour market.
With respect to self-assessment, country-specific
human capital is a very important factor in forming
labour market attitudes. The expectations of non-Estonians
(especially young people) with Estonian citizenship
or good Estonian language skills in the labour market
are generally higher or similar to the expectations of
Estonians. On the other hand, the actual position of the
group in the labour market indicates that even if they
have similar educational levels and other equivalent
preconditions they still come off second-best to Estonians
in labour market competition. The contradiction
between expectations and reality is clearly visible in the
case of young non-Estonians with Estonian citizenship
and good language skills. Their prospects of achieving
positions as managers or professionals are significantly
lower than those of their Estonian contemporaries, while
they have higher salary expectations than Estonians and
similar wishes to get jobs conforming to their education.
Apparently, this fact, as well as the more general experience
of the decreased mobility of the ethnic group, has
resulted in the extremely critical assessment of the non-
Estonians regarding the equality of opportunities in the
labour market.
The most important conditions that shape the choices
and opportunities available to minorities in the labour
market are: the policies related to immigration and ethnic
minorities, the structure and regulations of the labour
market, and the role of the welfare state in managing
the risks of coping, or vice versa, in applying pressure to
accept worse jobs. The state’s minorities’ policy also has
symbolic meaning by sending a message to all the parties
about how the arrivals are treated, how permanent a
relationship is anticipated between this individual and the
state, and whether it is sensible for the parties to invest in
this relationship. When it becomes evident that countryspecific
human capital cannot equalize opportunities, the
risk develops that the desire to invest in this relationship
will disappear.
The consistency of the policy and the clarity of the
signal sent to the public are especially important when
the second generation of immigrants needs to be integrated.
The integration of the second generation is
accompanied by more complicated problems (compared
to the first generation of immigrants), including a greater
ambition for achieving results equal to those of the indigenous
population (also demonstrated by our analysis). As
we have seen, the situation among young non-Estonians
regarding the perception of the situation and their actual
prospects is no better than it is among older ones. Therefore
it is naïve to think that the situation will improve
by itself.
References
1. Lane, R.E. (1986). “Market Justice, Political Justice” American
Political Science Review 80: pp. 383–402.
2. Luuk, M., Pavelson, M. (2002). “Non-Estonians on the Labor
Market: A Change in the Economic Model and Differences in
Social Capital” The Challenge of Russian Minority. Lauristin,
M., Heidmets, M. (eds). Tartu University Press, pp. 89–116.
3. Reitz, J.G. (1998). Warmth of the Welcome. Westview Press,
Boulder, CO.
4.6. Summary
Regardless the satisfaction level among the Estonian population
is the same as the European average, the gap in the
satisfaction assessments of the ethnic majority and minorities
is one of the largest – the Russian-speaking population
in Estonia is less satisfied with life than the Estonians.
Comparing the factors determining the life satisfaction of
Estonians and non-Estonians, we see that satisfaction with
the performance of the state, which is low among Estonia’s
Russian-speaking population, plays an important role in
the formation of the minorities’ assessments. However, the
positive expectations regarding democracy and the market
economy that predominated among the Russian-speaking
population when reforms started have receded by the
second decade of the transition period – although satisfaction
with the present has continually increased, trust
in the future performance of the new system, especially
the political system, has simultaneously decreased. Compared
to the corresponding average assessments of European
immigrants, Estonia’s Russian-speaking population
has experienced wider discrimination, and they have sig-
| 100