Estonian Human Development Report

ditions of a society, which should meet the needs and abilities
of people (wealth, political freedom, equality, access
to education, etc.). Such an understanding can be conditionally
termed as “input-based” measurement of quality
of life, where an assessment is made of the opportunities
provided by a society for leading a high-quality life. This
approach has been criticized for the unconfirmed presupposition
that better social conditions can be automatically
equated with a higher level of individual well-being.
Another problem results from determining individuals’
needs and abilities to which the social conditions should
correspond. (Noll 2002).
The “output-based approach” studies people’s quality
of life through subjective well-being (e.g. assessments
of their state of health, satisfaction with life, happiness
or satisfaction with their living environment (school system,
healthcare services, infrastructure, etc.)) (Veenhoven
1996). According to this approach, the quality of life of a
society is determined by the average quality of life of its
members. In the temporal or spatial comparison of the
general quality of life, it is important to combine the two
approaches, taking into account that an increase in the
general affluence of a society does not mean that people’s
happiness increases at the same rate. Cummins (2000)
believes that general economic growth is only expressed
in general subjective satisfaction if there is a decrease in
the percentage of the population living below the poverty
line.
In addition to the quality of life derived from the general
environment, the quality of life is also determined by
the resources and abilities of the individual. Resources
related to the quality of life include, first of all, income,
i.e. the material welfare of an individual or a household,
followed by the state of health, work, relationships with
friends and family, involvement in the community, personal
safety, emotional well-being (Cummins 1996). Personal
free time is another important resource in the context
of current lifestyles.
Resources related to the quality of life provide the
opportunity to satisfy basic needs; the satisfying of
basic needs creates individual quality of life which is
expressed in the individual’s feeling of satisfaction and
positive assessments regarding their way of life. This
means that in addition to objective indicators, subjective
individual satisfaction must be taken into consideration
when measuring quality of life. Subjective satisfaction
with life comprises satisfaction with various
spheres of life: satisfaction with family life, relationships
with friends, health, personal success, economic situation,
etc. (Campbell 1981). Subjective indicators not only
reflect the objective situation, but also point to the gap
between expectations and the actual situation. Subjective
assessments thus reveal the problematic spheres of
life where barriers prevent the achievement of goals (e.g.
the improvement of living conditions or family relationships).
Individual satisfaction assessments are formed
through various social comparisons (compared to a reference
group, an earlier situation, or a situation considered
ideal or suitable).
The following chapter measures the quality of life based
on the Erik Allardt’s approach to well-being, according to
which the quality of life consists of objective resources and
subjective assessments in the dimensions of having, loving
and being.
Three aspects are taken into consideration in analyzing
the quality of life of the population of Estonia: the
current state of the quality of life, the trends in individual
quality of life in 1994–2006(8), and the comparison of
the general living standard of Estonian society to similar
indicators reflecting the performance of other European
countries.
The analysis of the quality of life applies data from
various social studies. The data for 1994 and 1999 has
been taken from two living conditions surveys (NOR-
BALT I and II) conducted in Estonia in cooperation
between the University of Tartu, the Ministry of Social
Affairs, the Statistical Office of Estonia and the Institute
for Applied Social Studies FAFO (Norway). The
sample for both studies consisted of 5000 households 9 .
The indicators characterizing quality of life in 2004 and
2006 have been taken from the European Social Survey
which studied 26 countries in 2004 and 25 countries
in 2006; the Estonian sample consisted of 2000
respondents in the 2004 survey and 1500 respondents
in the 2006 survey 10 . The most recent data have been
taken from the document entitled Integration of Estonian
Society: Monitoring 2008 (sample 1500 respondents).
In addition to the aforementioned material, the
report also uses data from the European Union Survey
on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) and current
statistics.
3.2. Development of individual
quality of life, 1994–2008
Living conditions
Living conditions are primarily defined through dwellings
and their surrounding infrastructure. In terms of
the general quality of life, important aspects related to
living conditions include the size of the dwelling, the
availability of amenities, as well as the characteristics of
the surrounding environment (access to various infrastructural
objects, noise levels, pollution of the living
environment, etc.).
In 2007, 70% of Estonia’s population lived in apartment
buildings, while 30% of the population lived in farmhouses,
single family or terraced houses. At the same time, living
conditions differ by region – nearly half of the people liv-
9
A more detailed overview of the study of living conditions in Estonia see http://www.fafo.no/norbalt/index.htm
10
See www.http://europeansocialsurvey.org
55 |