Estonian Human Development Report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 4.2.1. Life satisfaction by ethnic majority and minority groups* 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 * To calculate the satisfaction index, the following questions have been summed up: How satisfied are you with the current economic situation in the country / the government / performance of democracy in the country? How satisfied are you with your life on the whole / your standard of living / your work? How happy are you? (A higher aggregate index value indicated greater satisfaction.) Source: European Social Survey 2006 Minority Majority Denmark Finland Switzerland Norway Cyprus Sweden The Netherlands Ireland Austria Belgium Spain United Kingdom ESTONIA Slovenia Germany Slovakia France Poland Portugal Latvia Romania Hungary Russia Ukraine Bulgaria Other research also shows that possessing (or not possessing) citizenship is an important identifier in the evaluation of material opportunities, while at the same time, satisfaction in various life spheres is affected most by ethnicity and income – the satisfaction of the Russian-speaking population that possesses Estonian citizenship is lower than the satisfaction of Estonians with the same income and educational levels (Kasearu & Trumm 2008). The comparison of Estonia with other countries is also motivated by the fact that in the case of the Latvian sample with a historical and political background to similar Estonia’s, neither minority status nor citizenship are significant factors in describing one’s life satisfaction. Therefore Estonia’s situation is unique and deserves more precise analysis. General life satisfaction among Europe’s majority and minority groups An overview of the theories of wellbeing and quality of life are provided above (Kasearu & Trumm 2008). Some research that deals specifically with the subjective perception of wellbeing among ethnic majority and minority groups emphasizes the significance of material resources and the physical environment, as well as socio-demographic factors, as the creators of satisfaction (i.e. Mata 2002). Other research considers subjective elements to be more important in the creation of the quality of life – such as the strength of one’s family and network of intimates (see Bajekal et al. 2004) and the feeling that one is able to control certain life experiences (Lackland 1989). Figure 4.2.1. shows a comparison of the aggregate evaluations of majority and minority groups 20 in 25 European countries related to life satisfaction. The figure shows that the evaluations of the ethnic majorities and minorities 21 in many countries are relatively similar. However, a trend is apparent that ethnic majority groups tend to be more satisfied than ethnic minorities (mean value of 42.44 and 40.58 respectively). The evaluations of ethnic majority and minority groups are relatively similar in countries with strong economies and relatively clear and open minority policies (e.g. Norway, Finland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and France) and countries with more unsettled economic and political regimes (e.g. Ukraine and Russia). There is a trend toward somewhat lower satisfaction among minorities in post-socialist countries, such as Bulgaria, Ukraine, Poland and Slovakia, which may be a reflection of the difficulty of designing integration policies in transition countries. The lower satisfaction assessments in some “old” EU member states may reflect relatively liberal immigration policies, while there are difficulties in finding solutions for specific spheres related to integration (e.g. instances of discrimination in Denmark, education issues in Germany, the Netherlands, etc.). Even in countries with relatively similar socio-economic backgrounds, the “pattern” of the assessments of the majority and minority groups can be quite different – for instance, the evaluation of the majority and minority groups in Norway, Sweden, and Finland are quite similar, while they differ in Denmark. Therefore it is quite difficult to explain the similarities and differences in satisfaction evaluations based on macro conditions, which indirectly points to the smaller impact of objective factors as the creators of satisfaction. In the comparison of 25 countries it turns out that Estonia has the greatest difference in the evaluation of life satisfaction between the majority and minority groups – Estonians are noticeably more frequently satisfied with life than other ethnic groups. This may be explained, to a certain extent, by the very drastic change in the status of the Russian-speaking population after the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, the same thing occurred with the Latvian Russian-speaking population, but in Latvia the gaps in the satisfaction evaluations based on ethnic group are somewhat smaller. Age is a very important factor in the evaluation of life satisfaction (see Annex 4.2.1., Chapter 3 Realo), and this may have a greater effect on evaluations in the case of immigrants – younger people may be more satisfied since they have adapted better to the society. Figure 4.2.2. presents an overview of the satisfaction evaluations of ethnic majority and minority groups in different age groups. From the figure we can see that Europe is characterized by a greater percentage of satisfaction among the middle-aged population. Estonia is an exception with the greatest percentage of satisfaction among the youngest age group. In the oldest age group, the satisfaction evaluations of Estonia’s population are comparable to the European average (see Figure 4.2.2.). 20 In the analysis, the ethnic majority and minority have been formed based on whether the respondent defines him or herself as belonging to the majority or minority group. The alternative would have been to differentiate the ethnic groups based on whether people were born in the specific country or not. However, an initial analysis showed that self-determination was the important distinguishing factor for the quality of life. Earlier studies have also shown that the time one has lived in the country is an unimportant factor for subjectively describing the ability to cope (Verkuyten 1986). 21 In the analysis here and hereafter the shorter singular version of “ethnic minority group” has been used, which actually includes the accumulated data of the ethnic minority groups that live in the various countries. | 82
In Europe as a whole, the differences between ethnic majority and minority groups by generations are noticeably smaller than in Estonia. The differences in the assessments of the ethnic majority and minority groups do not decrease as the generations grow younger. Therefore it cannot be said that the attitudes and evaluations of minorities will “naturally” become more optimistic with a change in generations. Factors forming general satisfaction by country As described above, the measurement-evaluation of the quality of the life and life satisfaction is based on many different factors. Data from the European Social Survey primarily enables general satisfaction and feelings of happiness to be analyzed (Questions: How satisfied are you with your life in general? How happy are you?); as well as more as one’s satisfaction with personal material wellbeing specifically (How satisfied are you with your work / standard of living?). In addition, one can analyze people’s level of satisfaction with the performance of the state (How satisfied are you with the country’s economic situation / the functioning of democracy in the country / the country’s government?). Table 4.2.1. provides an overview of the analysis of ethnic majority and minority groups according to these dimensions. From the table, it appears that in the majority of countries, the evaluations given by members of ethnic minority groups for feelings of happiness, material wellbeing as well as the performance of the state are all relatively similar. At the same time, for instance, the ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom were relatively satisfied on a personal level, but relatively dissatisfied with the performance of the state. Therefore successfully coping individually does not guarantee the satisfaction of the minority with the country’s minority policies. Apparently, certain collective expectations and the minority’s ambitions to achieve greater political influence play a role here. Based on individual evaluation components, Estonia’s ethnic minorities are located in the bottom third of the country rankings. The relatively more positive evaluation of the material situation is apparently based on the growth of income and improvement in the material situation of Estonia’s Russian-speaking population, especially among Estonian citizens (Kasearu & Trumm 2008). At the same time, the lower satisfaction of the ethnic minorities with the performance of the state is also characteristic of Estonia, which after the events of April 2007 has decreased even further – the most recent studies point to the fact that distrust and pessimism regarding the state have increased among Estonia’s Russian-speaking population, especially during the last few years (see, for instance, Integration of Estonian Society: Monitoring 2008). Analysis by various age groups shows that while in a generational comparison differences in personal satisfaction are relatively unchanged, the dissatisfaction regarding the performance of the state is even greater among the younger generation than among the older generation. The second section of Table 4.2.1. shows the relationships between various individual evaluations and the aggregate satisfaction evaluation. The strength of the association is indicated by the correlation coefficient (maximum value of 1 shows total association between the variables, a value of 0 shows the total lack of association). Figure 4.2.2. Life satisfaction of majority and minority groups by age group in Estonia and Europe (high general satisfaction percentages) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 31 47 37 61 63 15–29 30–49 50–75 Source: European Social Survey 2006 38 55 33 European minority Estonian minority European majority Estonian majority From an analysis of these relationships, it appears that the aggregate life satisfaction evaluation for ethnic minorities depends primarily on satisfaction with the performance of the state (the strongest average correlation or association between the two variables of .77). In some of the transition countries (Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Russia), as well as in the so-called European welfare states (Finland, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Austria, Netherlands, Germany and France), the country’s capability or incapability to regulate the economic situation and to guarantee the performance of the government and democracy are often given as the reasons for life satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Although in Estonia the evaluation of the state also affects the aggregate satisfaction evaluation, the extent of this association is even somewhat weaker than the European average. Thus we can conclude that as the economic situation and democracy improve, the minorities’ expectations regarding the performance of the state also increase. Therefore, as a rule, personal material satisfaction is slightly less important in the formation of general life satisfaction than satisfaction with the performance of the state. Only in two countries – Sweden and Spain – does personal material wellbeing play a more significant role in the formation of general satisfaction. Since these countries have relatively high unemployment rates among ethnic minorities, work satisfaction (and its existence) at a personal level is an important indicator for the formation of life satisfaction. The satisfaction of ethnic minorities regarding the performance of the state, as well as personal feelings of happiness, affect people’s own interest in politics and their trust in institutions (in Estonia this association is statistically even stronger then in Europe on average). In other countries with relatively large minorities, such as the United Kingdom and Romania, a significant association appeared between political interest and personal material satisfaction, while in Estonia the background for the political interest of minorities is comprised of ideological-psychological considerations rather than socioeconomic ones. In a similar manner to Estonia, minority groups are significantly less interested in politics in Denmark, for example, and therefore a greater role in the political interest of minorities may be played by circumstances related to the specific political landscape, such as the politicization of various socio-economic issues, the structure of political parties (for instance, in Esto- 22 38 20 38 83 |
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 64 and 65: Table 3.2.6. Agreement with stateme
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 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?