Estonian Human Development Report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 3.2.6. Agreement with statements expressing alienation from society (responses “completely agree” or “sooner agree than disagree” by ethnicity, place of residence, and age group (%)) I do not look at the future hopefully My contribution is not recognized I feel that I am a second-rate member of the society Place of Ethnicity residence Total Estonian Russian City Rural area Source: Integration of Estonian Society: Monitoring 2008. Age group 15–2425–3940–59 60–75 21.1 18.6 26.1 23.8 15.5 9.5 12.6 24 40.3 23.5 19.3 32 25.9 18.6 20 19.8 23.9 32.4 26.3 22 35.1 28.8 21.3 15.8 19.8 28.2 42.4 People look down on me due to my low 13.8 10.8 19.7 16.2 8.8 9.2 8.4 15.2 23.5 income or occupation I feel that I have “missed the boat” I do not have the opportunity to influence society I am unable to protect my interests 22.5 18.9 29.4 23.8 19.6 6.4 14.5 28.6 39.4 63.3 57.8 72.3 65 59.8 44.6 55 70.8 79.2 25.7 16.4 44.5 30.2 16.3 13.2 18.1 27.3 53.3 although the percentage of those who are very interested in politics is higher among Estonians. General trust in national institutions has been steadily low in 2004–2008. On a scale of 1–10 (1 meaning having no trust at all and 10 meaning having full confidence), confidence in the Riigikogu has fluctuated between 4.2 and 4.6 points during this period, while confidence in the judicial system has increased over the years (4.9 in 2004 and 5.3 in 2008) and confidence in the police has remained the same (5.6 points). Although the trust of Estonians in the national institutions has grown in comparison with the overall average, the opinions of the Russian-speaking population have become increasingly negative when measured on the same scale (Figure 3.2.5.), pointing to a polarization process that is affecting the society (see also Trumm & Kasearu 2008). In 2004 and 2006, people with a higher education expressed greater confidence in institutions, but the differences have grown smaller by 2008. Trust also wanes as people grow older (younger people have more trust in institutions than older respondents). Younger respondents also attribute more value to social cohesion and are ten per cent less likely to think that society would function better if everyone were to take care of themselves. Subjectively perceived alienation (withdrawal) from society. Previous surveys have shown that subjective assessments of one’s economic situation and success are more important as indicators of well-being than the actual situation (see Kasearu & Trumm 2008). This allows us to consider that subjective assessments of one’s situation may have a more significant effect on the general quality of life than the real situation itself. Dissatisfaction with one’s life, way of life, living conditions and quality of life in general may more likely be an outcome of perceived withdrawal from society than an assessment of actual living conditions. In 2006, 14% of Estonia’s population claimed that they belong to a group that is discriminated against in the society. Ethnicity and language were reported as the primary bases for discrimination, meaning that discrimination was experienced most frequently by Russian-speakers and people with a higher education. Perceived withdrawal from society was measured through seven statements (Table 3.2.6.). The table provides the percentages of respondents agreeing with the statements by ethnicity, place of residence and age group. The absence of opportunities and the resulting lower quality of life can be viewed from the standpoint of future expectations. The percentage of people pessimistic about their future has decreased from 32% in 2006 to 24% in 2008. Estonians, residents of rural areas, people with a higher education and younger people tend to be more optimistic. The most significant source of dissatisfaction for the residents of Estonia is the absence of opportunities to influence social processes and a quarter of the respondents feel that they are underpriviledged members of the society and are unable to protect their interests. Studies reveal that living in rural areas decreases the likelihood of withdrawal: the number of people who feel that they are unable to protect their interests and that they are looked down upon due to their low income is two times lower among people living outside of urban centres. The feeling of being alienated is closely related to age (Table 3.2.6.). Older people were considerably more likely to agree with statements that measured alienation and nearly 80% of people aged 60–75 stated that they do not have the opportunity to influence society. One fifth of younger respondents were of the opinion that the society and fellow citizens do not recognize their contributions but were also quite optimistic, with less than 10% of young people claiming to have “missed the boat”. Among middle-aged people, however, there is a common fear of being a second-rate person who has not been able to keep up with the changes occurring in society. Comparisons between countries (Böhnke 2008) have shown that among EU states, Baltic countries exhibit the highest rate of perceived alienation from society and the least connection between a people’s withdrawal and their socio-economic position. Compared to the Estonian-speaking population, a much higher percentage of the Russian-speaking population feel alienated, but the most important difference becomes clear when we look at the perceived ability to protect one’s interests. The fact remains that there are 28% more Russianspeakers than Estonian-speakers who feel that they are unable to protect their interests (Table 3.2.6.). At the same time, the data of the 2006 European Social Survey indicate that, surprisingly, the percentage of those who feel that they are unable to manage their own life is higher among Estonians compared to Russian-speakers. Thus, Estonians are more likely to consider their lack of success a result of their personal problems, while the Russian-speaking population sees structural reasons related to the organization of the society as one of the sources of their failures. For example, 22% of Estonians and 46% of Russian-speakers believe that compared to the Russian-speaking population, Estonians have better opportunities for self-expression and engaging in creative processes, and 39% of the Russian-speaking population agreed with the statement that they have very few opportunities to show how capable they are, while among Estonian respondents, the rate of agreement with this statement was twice as low. For further analysis related to perceived alienation a composite alienation index was created by combin- | 62
References 1. Allardt, E. (1993). Having, loving, being: An alternative to the Swedish model of welfare research. M. C. Nussbaum, A. Sen, The quality of life. Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp. 88–94. 2. Böhnke, P. (2008). Feeling left out. Patterns of social integration and exclusion. Jens Alber, Tony Fahey, Chiara Saraceno, Handbook of Quality of Life in the Enlarged European Union. New York: Routledge. 304–327. 3. Crompton, R. & Lyonnette, C. (2006). Work-life balance in Europe. Acta Sociologica, 49, 379–393. 4. Cummins, R. A: (2000). Objective and subjective quality of life an interactive model. Social Indicators Research 52, 55–72. 5. Dehley, J. (2004). Life satisfaction in an enlarged Europe. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 6. Dex, S. & Bond, S. (2005). Measuring work-life balance and its covariates. Work, Employment and Society, 19, 627–637 7. Erikson, R. (1993). Descriptions of inequality: the Swedish approach to welfare research. M. C. Nussbaum, A. Sen, The quality of life. Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp. 67–83. 8. Farquhar, M. (1995). Elderly people’s definitions of quality of life. Social Science and Medicine, 41, (10), 1439–1446. 9. Grzywacz, J.G. & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111–126. 10. Jeffers, L.W. & Dobos, J. (1995). Separating people’s satisfaction with life and public perceptions of quality of life in the environment. Social Indicators Research 34 (2), 181–211. 11. Kasearu, K. & Trumm, A. (2008). Mitte-eestlaste sotsiaalmajanduslik olukord. Eesti Inimarengu Aruanne 2007 [Socio- Economic Situation of Non-Estonians. Estonian Human Development Report 2007], Eesti Koostöö Kogu, pp. 47–54. 12. Kohler, H.-P., Behrman, J.R., Skytthe, A. (2005). Partner+Childr en=Happiness? The Effects of Partnerships and Fertility on Well- Being. Population and Development Review, 31(3), 407–445. 13. Kutsar, D. (1997). Multiple Welfare Losses and Risk of Social Exclusion in the Baltic States during Societal Transition. In. A. Aasland, K. Knudsen, D. Kutsar, I. Trapenciere. The Baltic Countries Revisited: Living Conditions and Comparative Challenges. Fafo: Forskningsstiftelsen Fafo. 14. Land, K. (2001). Models and indicators. Social Forces, 80, 2, 381–410. 15. Lyonette C., Crompton, R. & Wall, K. (2007). Gender, occupational class and work-life conflict. Community, Work and Family, 10, 283–308. ing the statements expressing alienation, with the composite index being separated into three categories on the basis of the division of the index (not alienated, at risk of alienation, and alienated). Subjectively perceived alienation was characteristic of a fifth of the respondents and there were more alienated individuals among people aged 60–75 (34%) and the Russian-speaking population (30%), and considerably fewer alienated individuals among people living in rural areas (14%). In the further analysis of quality of life, the absence of perceived alienation has been viewed as social involvement that guarantees a higher quality of life. 16. Noll, H-H. (2002). Towards a European system of social indicators: theoretical framework and system architecture. Social Indicators Research, 58, 47–87. 17. Olagnero, M., Torrioni, P., Saraceno, C. (2008). Patterns of sociability in the enlarged EU. J. Alber, T. Fahey, C. Saraceno, Handbook of Quality of Life in the Enlarged European Union. New York: Routledge. 279–303. 18. Paugam, S. Russell, H. (2000). The effects of employment precarity and unemployment on social isolation. D. Gallie, S. Paugam (eds) Welfare Regimes and the Experience of Unemployment in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 243–263. 19. Rootalu, K. (2008). Abielulahutuse tagajärjed ja suhtumine lahutustesse Euroopas. [Effects of Divorce and Attitudes Towards Divorce in Europe] M. Ainsaar, D. Kutsar (eds). Eesti Euroopa võrdlustes. Series of the Ministry of Social Affairs 3/2008, pp. 35–48. 20. Tausig, M. & Fenwick, R. (2001). Unbinding time: Alternate work schedules and work-life balance. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22, 101–119. 21. Telpt, E. (2008). Hoiakud ja tegelikkus palgatöö ja majapidamistöö ühitamisel: Euroopa riikide võrdlus. [Attitudes and Reality in Reconciling Work and Home Life] M. Ainsaar, D. Kutsar (eds). Eesti Euroopa võrdlustes. Series of the Ministry of Social Affairs 3/2008, pp. 67–82. 22. Trumm, A., Kasearu, K. (2008). Sotsiaalse ja majandusliku integratsiooni hetkeolukord ja tuleviku väljakutsed. [Current State and Future Challenges of Social and Economic Integration] Riikliku integratsiooniprogrammi 2008–2013 väljatöötamine. http://www.rahvastikuminister.ee/public/V_osa_sotsiaalne_ ja_majanduslik_integratsioon.pdf 23. Veenhoven, R. (1996). Happy life-expectance: A comprehensive measure of quality-of-life in nations. Social Indicators Research 39, 1–58. 24. Voydanoff, P. (2004). The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 398–412. 25. Wallace, C., Pichler, F. (2008). Working conditions and quality of work. A comparison of Eastern and Western Europe. J. Alber, T. Fahey, C. Saraceno, Handbook of Quality of Life in the Enlarged European Union. New York: Routledge. 162–174. 26. Zapf, W. (1984). Individuelle Wohlfahrt: Lebensbedingungen und wahrgenommene Lebensqualität. W. Glatzer, W. Zapf, Lebensqualität in der Bundesrepublik: objective Lebensbedingungen und subjektives Wohlbefinden, Frankfurt a. M. New York, Campus, 12–26. 27. Zapf, W. (2000). Social reporting in the 1970s and in the 1990s. Social Indicators Research, 51, 1, 1–15. 3.3. Happiness and satisfaction with life As mentioned earlier, the quality of life of individuals and societies can be measured not only by economic and social indicators, but also through subjective wellbeing, which is characterized by the emotional and cognitive assessments people make of their lives, or in other words, everything that is commonly known as happiness or satisfaction with life (Diener et al. 2003). Subjective well-being has two important components: the cognitive component comprises people’s assessment of their level of general satisfaction with their lives or specific areas 63 |
Page 1 and 2:
Estonian Human Development Report
Page 3 and 4:
Estonian Human Development Report T
Page 5:
4.2. Ethnic differentiations in sat
Page 9:
Preface This year, the Estonian Hum
Page 12 and 13:
CHAPTER 1 Estonian Human Developmen
Page 14 and 15: Figure 1.1.3. Life expectancy in co
Page 16 and 17: Figure 1.2.2. Life expectancy at bi
Page 18 and 19: to reality. The greatest inaccuracy
Page 20 and 21: Figure 1.2.9. Internal migration ev
Page 22 and 23: 12. Marksoo, A. 1992. “Dynamics o
Page 24 and 25: Table 1.3.1. PISA 2006 study result
Page 26 and 27: Table 1.3.2. Number of students in
Page 28 and 29: 1.4. The gross domestic product and
Page 30 and 31: Figure 1.4.3. Estonian GDP (right a
Page 32 and 33: 1.5. Changes in the Estonian Human
Page 34 and 35: 2.2. Health of Estonian residents i
Page 36 and 37: Table 2.2.4. Differences in life ex
Page 38 and 39: Figure 2.4.1. Healthy life years of
Page 40 and 41: Figure 2.4.4. Various accidents, tr
Page 42 and 43: 2.5. Lifestyle and behaviour as a s
Page 44 and 45: Figure 2.5.5. Smoking in Estonia in
Page 46 and 47: Figure 2.6.1. Overview of the compo
Page 48 and 49: Table 2.6.2. Use of specialized med
Page 50 and 51: dren. The majority of services are
Page 52 and 53: Figure 2.8.2. How much a health dis
Page 54 and 55: 2.10. Policy recommendations aimed
Page 56 and 57: CHAPTER 3 Quality of life and life
Page 58 and 59: Table 3.2.1. Characteristics of liv
Page 60 and 61: Table 3.2.4. An assessment of the e
Page 62 and 63: Figure 3.2.4. Difference in the job
Page 66 and 67: Figure 3.3.1. Satisfaction with lif
Page 68 and 69: Figure 3.3.4. Percentage of people
Page 70 and 71: Figure 3.4.1. Types of quality of l
Page 72 and 73: Figure 3.5.1. Percentage of teenage
Page 74 and 75: Figure 3.5.4. Percentage of respond
Page 76 and 77: Arieh A., Conti C., Kutsar D., Nicg
Page 78 and 79: Figure 3.6.2. Subjective quality of
Page 80 and 81: Pieper, A. Sixsmith, Care related q
Page 82 and 83: Figure 3.7.1. The placement of Euro
Page 84 and 85: Figure 4.2.1. Life satisfaction by
Page 86 and 87: Table 4.2.1. Factors forming genera
Page 88 and 89: Annexes Annex 4.2.1. Socio-demograp
Page 90 and 91: Figure 4.3.1. Changes in the assess
Page 92 and 93: Figure 4.3.4. Attitudes of the Esto
Page 94 and 95: olds considered themselves to be pa
Page 96 and 97: Table 4.4.3. Agreement of the Russi
Page 98 and 99: Table 4.5.2. The prospects of non-E
Page 100 and 101: Figure 4.5.4. Certainty of Estonian
Page 102 and 103: mote equal opportunities. At the (e
Page 104 and 105: CHAPTER 5 Quality of life in a cons
Page 106 and 107: Figure 5.2.1. GDP and AIC per capit
Page 108 and 109: Figure 5.2.3. Distribution of consu
Page 110 and 111: Figure 5.2.4. Indexes of environmen
Page 112 and 113: Table 5.3.1. Comparison of countrie
Page 114 and 115:
Figure 5.3.3. Comparison of types o
Page 116 and 117:
Table 5.3.5. Connections between po
Page 118 and 119:
Table 5.4.1. Who and what are the f
Page 120 and 121:
Table 5.4.3. Young people’s asses
Page 122 and 123:
Figure 5.4.6. Time spent on the con
Page 124 and 125:
Table 5.4.6. The perception of prob
Page 126 and 127:
5.6. Summary To briefly summarize t
Page 128 and 129:
Table 6.2.1. Objective and subjecti
Page 130 and 131:
Figure 6.2.4. Relationship between
Page 132 and 133:
Figure 6.2.7. Difference between th
Page 134 and 135:
Figure 6.3.1. GDP, government secto
Page 136 and 137:
Figure 6.3.3. Employed 15-74-year-o
Page 138 and 139:
Figure 6.3.8. Percentage of social
Page 140 and 141:
References 1. Aaviksoo, A., G. Paat
Page 142 and 143:
Figure 6.4.1. Labour market flexibi
Page 144 and 145:
Figure 6.4.3. Creations of jobs ind
Page 146 and 147:
Figure 6.4.5. Public expenditures o
Page 148 and 149:
Figure 6.4.6. Ratio of the particip
Page 150 and 151:
6.5. Cities as development engines
Page 152 and 153:
Table 6.5.2. Existence of developme
Page 154 and 155:
have been underfinanced or are not
Page 156 and 157:
Table 7.1. Factors that favour and
Page 158 and 159:
Table 7.2. Potential economic devel
Page 160 and 161:
Authors Chapter 1 Ene-Margit Tiit,
Page 162 and 163:
Margit Keller (PhD) is a Senior Res
Page 164 and 165:
Special prizes Estonian Human Devel
Page 166 and 167:
Estonian Human Development Report H
Page 168 and 169:
Estonian Human Development Report H
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Honorable mentions Estonian Human D
Page 174 and 175:
Estonian Human Development Report P
Page 176 and 177:
Estonian Human Development Report A
Page 178:
show all

Estonian Human Development Report

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?