Estonian Human Development Report

Figure 3.5.4. Percentage of respondents who characterized
their family’s economic situation 17 as bad
by country of residence (excerpt from countries that
participated in the study)
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Poland
The Czech
Republic
Hungary
Finland
Germany
France
Denmark
Sweden
The United
Kingdom
Norway
Source: Currie et al. 2008; 2004.
8
7
9.2
8
4
5.8
12
13
13
13.5
17.8
16.4
16.1
15.3
29
2005&2006
2001&2002
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
their parents’ economic situation and the parents’ attitudes
towards raising children. In the opinion of the children, the
economic situation of families in Estonia has improved, i.e.
in an international study of the health behaviour of schoolchildren
the percentage of respondents who rate the economic
situation of their families as bad has decreased during
the last five years (Figure 3.5.4.). It is worth noting that
the economic situation of families has improved at a significantly
faster pace in the new EU member states, such as the
Baltic countries and Poland, but remains considerably worse
there than in Nordic and Western European countries.
In the European context, Estonian children are relatively
poor and only children in Lithuania and Latvia are poorer,
while the median income of poor children in neighbouring
Finland is just 10% below the poverty line (Polandkese & Reinomägi
2008). In terms of the economic situation, the level
of quality of life is lowest for children living with non-active
parents, who constituted 8.2% of all people under 18 in 2006.
The effect of the unemployment of a parent on children is
especially conspicuous in times of general economic growth
when differences between people living on social benefits and
those living on an income grow quickly. The poverty risk of
children with unemployed parents started growing sharply
in 2002 concurrently with the economic growth experienced
by the Estonian society. Tiit (2006) points out an important
cause of this trend: unemployment insurance benefits did not
keep pace with the rise of the relative poverty line.
The socio-political decisions of recent years reflect a certain
tendency of improvement in the material well-being on
which children’s quality of life is based. Analyzing the effect
of family benefits on the alleviation of poverty in Estonia,
Võrk and Paulus (2007) found that national family benefits
have reduced the number of children living in poverty
by nearly a third. The effect was the greatest in the case of
30
33
32
32
38
40.1
38.7
43.1
43.5
53,1
55.9
families with many children and the smallest in the case of
families with one child and single-parent families. According
to Tiit (2006), the poverty risk of households has not
been significantly raised in recent years (unlike before) by
having a larger number of children under 14 in the household,
although the poverty risk of children living with single
mothers has increased during the same period.
Effect of poverty on children’s quality of life. The results
of a household income and expenditure study conducted
by Statistics Estonia revealed that families differ greatly in
terms of the percentage of the family’s total expenses spent
on children. Tiit (2004) used data gathered in 2002 to compare
households belonging to the five lowest (the poorer
half) and five highest (the wealthier half) income deciles
and found that the difference between these two income
groups in terms of spending on children was nearly twofold.
The structure of expenses of the wealthier half of the families
showed that they spent, on average, 1.55 times more on
food for children, 1.86 times more on children eating out,
2.13 times more on children’s transport, 3.12 times more on
children’s clothing and 3.25 times more on children’s recreational
activities. The needs of children vary more than
the needs of adults and change quickly as children become
older. The analysis showed that expenses related to buying
clothes and footwear for even preschoolers constituted 80%
of the expenses related to satisfying the corresponding needs
of adults, while in the case of 18-year-olds the expenses had
grown 1.5 times higher than those related to adults.
In addition to having their primary needs related to
food, shelter and self-development met, children also have
the need to belong to groups of their peers on an equal basis.
Owning certain items (the “right” toys, clothes, mobile
phone, computer, etc.) is an important external indicator of
the fact that children share the standards and values of their
peers and can therefore be accepted into a group of their
peers. The lack of these indicators may, however, be reason
enough to cause children to be rejected from participating
in the cultural routines of their peers. Compared to their
peers, children from poorer homes are more likely to experience
economic deprivation – they have less pocket money,
lack more of the items they need as well as opportunities
to participate in the activities of their peers. They perceive
themselves as having fewer friends than others and are less
satisfied with themselves (Kutsar et al. 2004). Lack of wealth
in itself does not destine children to social exclusion, but
money can facilitate their inclusion, especially in activities
that require the availability of financial resources.
In fact, children are less likely to have negative experiences
due to them lacking a certain item (economic deprivation)
than due to their inability to be included in groups
of their peers, i.e. deprivation of choices. Self-initiated activities
are more important to children than organized activities.
A small-scale survey of sixth graders by Viira (2005)
showed that 27% of the respondents felt deprived of opportunities
to participate in activities along with their peers. These
respondents were most often children who had unemployed
parents or parents with low incomes. The study also indicated
that children from poorer families actively reduce their own
needs, while being less active than children from wealthier
families in finding opportunities to escape undesirable sit-
17
The assessment is based on a conventional score calculated as an index characterizing the extent of the family’s belongings as defined by the child
(ownership of cars, computers, number of joint vacations, availability of a separate room for the child). The score varies from 0 to 9. Economic
situation is bad: score 0–3; average: score 4–5; good: score 6–9 (Aasvee et al., 2007, Kooliõpilaste tervisekäitumise uuring 2005–2006).
| 72