DEVELOPMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.9 Estonia’s peacefulness and security in an unstable world Marju Lauristin, Juhan Kivirähk 2.9.1 Components and country comparisons of the Global Peace Index The following factors were taken into consideration when compiling the Global Peace Index: the militarism of the countries, defensive capability, level of crime and violent conflicts, access to weapons in the population and the level of the country’s armament, risk of terrorism and foreign aggression, participation in peacekeeping missions, number of casualties in foreign conflicts. The 23 statistical indicators related to militarism, the risk of conflict, and instability; which reflect the security of a state, are recalculated into a 5-point scale and a general score for the peace index is computed on a 5-point scale based thereon. As background indicators, the Global Peace Index report also includes all the most important indicators for economic, human and democracy development, which enable the security of each country to be juxtaposed with its general level of development. Based on the general Global Peace Index (GPI) score, the countries under examination are divided into five quintiles. In 2012, 158 countries were examined, slightly fewer than in previous years. The top ten secure states include the following: from Europe the Nordic countries, Austria, Ireland, Switzerland and the post-Communist countries of Slovenia and the Czech Republic; and Canada, New Zealand and Japan of the non-European countries. The states with the highest peace ratings in the index are also among the best based on the indicators for democracy, human and economic development, and they are relatively corruption free. Based on the GPI, Estonia is in 41 st place; a sharp What affects Estonia’s position in the security ranking of the world states? Positively: lack of domestic violent conflict; lack of political terror; participation in peacekeeping missions; training; lack of illegal weapons export; lack of refugees from country; improving domestic security. Negatively: level of perceived criminality in society; number of violent deaths and homicides; number of prisoners; demonstrations that have become violent; military capability; large percentage of defence expenditures per GDP, which reflects a feeling of military threat; insecure relations with neighbouring states. decline occurred after 2007 (see Table 2.9.1). Estonia’s 41 st rank puts us in the second quintile, at the same level with France and the South Korea. All the new EU Member States, except for Latvia and Lithuania, placed ahead of Estonia. Of the European Union Member States, Greece is in the worst position. Russia is among the least secure states in the world, along with Pakistan, India, North of Korea, Israel and Iraq. As we can see from the table, all reference states selected for comparison in this report besides the South Korea, and Estonia itself, are in the first quintile of the peace index, whereas seven of them are in the top ten. Of the background traits, the following are important: the free flow of information, stable and functioning rule of law, relatively successful fight against corruption, relatively favourable business environment, and high education level. Of the background traits, Estonia’s security has been damaged the most by the following: its limited success with integration, which is interpreted as a risk of ethnic conflict; tense relations with Russia; and the limited cohesion of the society, which is expressed by inequitable access to resources. 2.9.2 External security The indicators that reflect external security comprise 40% of the Global Peace Index. These include the following: the state’s level of military spending; number of armed services personnel per 100,000 inhabitants, the state’s financial appropriations for participation in peacekeeping missions; number of heavy weapons per 100,000 inhabitants; export of conventional weapons per 100,000 inhabitants; evaluation of the state’s military capability; number of refugees and displaced persons as percentage of population; assessment of the relations with neighbouring states; participation in internal and external conflicts; and the number of deaths due to external wars. The Bonn International Centre for Conversion (BICC) regularly compiles a Global Militarisation Index. Based thereon, the world’s most militarised state is Israel, and of the Baltic states, Estonia. Based on the data collected by the BICC in 2011, in the Militarisation Index, is positioned at 35 th place right after Iran (34 th place). One of the fundamental indicators of this index is defence spending as a percentage of GDP. For instance, according to this index, Latvia places 94 th in the world and Lithuania places 60 th , after Georgia. Based on defence spending, Finland is the 27 th state in the world. The top ten are comprised of Israel, Singapore, Syria, Russia, Jordan, Cyprus, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. 100 Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
Table 2.9.1 The positions of Estonia and other states in the ranking of the Global Peace Index, 2007–2012 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Iceland 1. 1. 2. 4. 1. Denmark 2. 4. 7. 2. 2. 3. New Zealand 2. 2. 1. 1. 4. 2. Canada 4. 8. 14. 8. 11. 8. Japan 5. 3. 3. 7. 5. 5. Austria 6. 6. 4. 5. 10. 10. Ireland 6. 11. 6. 12. 6. 4. Slovenia 8. 10. 11. 10. 16. 15. Finland 9. 7. 9. 9. 8. 6. Switzerland 10. 16. 18. 18. 12. 14. Belgium 11. 14. 17. 15. 15. 11. Czech Republic 13. 5. 12. 11. 17. 13. Sweden 14. 13. 10. 6. 13. 7. Germany 15. 15. 16. 16. 14. 12. Portugal 16. 17. 13. 14. 7. 9. Hungary 17. 20. 20. 27. 18. 18. Norway 18. 9. 5. 2. 3. 1. Singapore 23. 24. 30. 23. 29. 29. Poland 24. 22. 29. 32. 31. 27. Spain 25. 28. 25. 28. 30. 21. Slovakia 26. 23. 21. 24. 20. 17. Taiwan 27. 27. 35. 37. 44. 36. Netherlands 28. 25. 27. 22. 22. 20. Great Britain 29. 26. 31. 35. 49. 49. Chile 30. 38. 28. 20. 19. 16. Romania 32. 40. 45. 31. 24. 26. Uruguay 33. 21. 24. 25. 21. 24. Costa Rica 36. 31. 26. 29. 34. 31. Italy 38. 45. 40. 36. 28. 33. Bulgaria 39. 53. 50. 56. 57. 54. France 40. 36. 32. 30. 36. 34. Estonia 41. 47. 46. 38. 35. 28. South Korea 42. 50. 43. 33. 32. 32. Lithuania 43. 43. 42. 43. 41. 43. Latvia 45. 46. 54. 54. 39. 47. Greece 77. 65. 62. 57. 54. 44. USA 88. 82. 85. 83. 97. 96. China 89. 80. 80. 74. 67. 60. Georgia 141. 134. 142. 134. India 142. 135. 128. 122. 107. 109. Pakistan 149. 146. 145. 137. 127. 115. Israel 150. 145. 144. 141. 136. 119. North Korea 152. 149. 139. 131. 133. Russia 153. 147. 143. 136. 131. 118. Iraq 155. 152. 149. 144. 140. 121. Sudan 156. 151. 146. 140. 138. 120. Afghanistan 157. 150. 147. 143. 137. Source: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data In some sense this approach is misleading, as are many other indicators based on GDP. Since the index reflects defence spending as a percentage of GDP, the U.S., which contributes the most in the world to this field of activity with a defence budget totalling US$698 billion, is only in 30 th position in this table. China’s US$129 billion defence budget puts it in second place after the U.S., but in this index it is in 82 nd place. In the Global Peace Index ranking, Estonia’s rating is influenced positively by its participation in peacekeeping missions, the small percentage of heavy weaponry and lack of weapons export, as well as the good training of its armed forces. However, Estonia’s position is impacted negatively by a low defence capability and relations with its neighbouring states in the external security field. As is the case in all kinds of general indices, one should view these indicators with a bit of scepticism. If we look at the assessments in the indices related to military capability, we see that Estonia, Finland and Latvia have all merited an equal 3.0 points (the best is 1.0 and the worst is 5.0). However, for those familiar with the military capability of Finland, and for example Latvia, this assessment is definitely incomprehensible. True, Finland’s defence spending as a percentage of GDP is lower than Estonia’s, but the capability level of its regular forces and the existence of the largest reserve in the region have always been praised by military experts. If we assume that Estonia and Latvia rise to an equal level with Finland thanks to their NATO membership, then the recently compiled Baltic Sea Report sees large qualitative differences in the capabilities of Estonia and Latvia. It is also interesting to take a look at the assessment of the states’ relations with their neighbours. Estonia, Finland and Latvia all have Russia as their large neighbour. If in Finland’s case, relations with Russia get the best score (1.0), in Latvia’s case the rating is 2.0 and for Estonia 3.0. This understandably involves the quality of diplomatic relations. Therefore, in the case of this parameter, it is less the risk posed by the neighbour that is being assessed, and more the skill of the state to live securely next to this dangerous neighbour. In the 2007 index, Estonia was given an assessment of 2.0. This subsequently worsened as a result of the Bronze Night. It can be expected that the developments in upcoming years will not provide a reason to assess Estonian-Russian relations as being any worse than Latvian-Russians ones. With the size of its defence expenditures, regular armed forces and prepared reserves, Estonia is clearly positioned in the group of Nordic countries, which have rather large reserve forces that supplement their small professional forces. Actually, when speaking about the sufficiency of defence capabilities, there is always the question – Sufficient for what? The expenditures and other efforts (size of the reserve, nature and quality of the weaponry, diplomatic activities related to improving relations with neighbours, etc.) depend to a significant degree on the region where the state is located, and the environment that it must cope with. It is a fact that in order to ensure external security, Estonia must do more than many other states that are located in “more secure regions”. Compulsory military service and a strong will to defend are factors that point, on the one hand, to strong Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013 101
Page 1:
ESTONIAN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2
Page 4 and 5:
Table of Contents 1 Human Capital /
Page 6 and 7:
Dear Reader Since the moment when E
Page 9 and 10:
1Human Capital Estonian Human Devel
Page 11 and 12:
the HDI’s content has also been h
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 1.1.1 The human development
Page 15 and 16:
Figure 1.1.7 The income sub-index:
Page 17 and 18:
The results of the Princeton Projec
Page 19 and 20:
the hypothetical generation. The to
Page 21 and 22:
Figure 1.2.3 Life expectancy. Eston
Page 23 and 24:
Table 1.2.2 also presents the most
Page 25 and 26:
The new trends that are appearing i
Page 27 and 28:
Figure 1.2.8 Components of populati
Page 29 and 30:
New features were introduced into E
Page 31 and 32:
Initiation of Voluntary Birth Contr
Page 33 and 34:
Table 1.3.1 Best-known educational
Page 35 and 36:
(OECD 2012b). Therefore a certain r
Page 37 and 38:
The reciprocal dependence of the pr
Page 39 and 40:
Figure 1.3.8 Percentage of students
Page 41 and 42:
Table 1.3.4 The quality of educatio
Page 43 and 44:
1.4 Health Raul-Allan Kiivet Change
Page 45 and 46:
Table 1.4.1 Usage of prescription m
Page 47 and 48:
allude to the fact that approximate
Page 49 and 50:
promote healthy lifestyles among th
Page 51 and 52: Figure 1.5.1 The World Values Surve
Page 53 and 54: Table 1.5.2 Estonia’s participati
Page 55 and 56: Figure 1.5.3 The percentage of the
Page 57 and 58: Figure 1.5.5 Percentage of the Esto
Page 59 and 60: The fact that Estonia’s position
Page 61 and 62: Summary Mati Heidmets The global vi
Page 63 and 64: 2People and Society Estonian Human
Page 65 and 66: Table 2.1.1 Structure of the Bertel
Page 67 and 68: tioning market economies (15 states
Page 69 and 70: 2.2 Freedom and democracy Martin M
Page 71 and 72: Table 2.2.1 Democracy indicators Po
Page 73 and 74: Figure 2.2.2 The distribution of th
Page 75 and 76: would be something that none of the
Page 77 and 78: political participation are general
Page 79 and 80: strongest, while a very small perce
Page 81 and 82: is concerned, Estonia is one of the
Page 83 and 84: Figure 2.4.2 Average circulation of
Page 85 and 86: 2.5 Corruption Jüri Saar In accord
Page 87 and 88: Lithuania, 61%; and in Russia, 69%.
Page 89 and 90: 2.6.2 Intentional homicides in Esto
Page 91 and 92: crime. And thirdly, there was a wis
Page 93 and 94: References 1. Ahven, A. & Tabur, L.
Page 95 and 96: states included in the EU Kids Onli
Page 97 and 98: 2.8 Public assessments of the state
Page 99 and 100: Figure 2.8.4 Changes releated to tr
Page 101: of the state’s development are en
Page 105 and 106: 3. IEP (2011). Structures of Peace.
Page 107 and 108: 3Welfare and the Quality of Life Es
Page 109 and 110: choices made, not what people say t
Page 111 and 112: Figure 3.1.5 Public social spending
Page 113 and 114: tion agreed upon the social contrac
Page 115 and 116: References 1. Aidukaite, J. (2006).
Page 117 and 118: hand, to the “inequality of acces
Page 119 and 120: and explanations of the extent of i
Page 121 and 122: 5- much more than I deserve. Some d
Page 123 and 124: people in Estonia consider the inco
Page 125 and 126: Table 3.3.1 Experienced Well-Being
Page 127 and 128: at about 70%. In Latvia and Lithuan
Page 129 and 130: sign. It seems that the usual view
Page 131 and 132: 3.4 Quality of life Anu Toots 3.4.1
Page 133 and 134: a uniform composite indicator has n
Page 135 and 136: 3.4.6 The components of life qualit
Page 137 and 138: Figure 3.4.4c Perceived quality of
Page 139 and 140: Figure 3.4.5 Changes in the depriva
Page 141 and 142: 3.5 Environment dimension of well-b
Page 143 and 144: Figure 3.5.1.b Estonia’s position
Page 145 and 146: 3.5.4 Energy intensity The energy i
Page 147 and 148: productivity, which is defined as t
Page 149 and 150: perceive themselves as worse off th
Page 151 and 152: 4The Economy Estonian Human Develop
Page 153 and 154:
vide a valuable connection for maki
Page 155 and 156:
Figure 4.1.3 Components of economic
Page 157 and 158:
ule of law, the sub-indicators for
Page 159 and 160:
References 1. Acemoglu, D.; Robinso
Page 161 and 162:
Development Report employs generali
Page 163 and 164:
and pasture land, and this was capi
Page 165 and 166:
Basing the total and net savings re
Page 167 and 168:
4.3 Labour market Reelika Leetmaa,
Page 169 and 170:
The problems include the very limit
Page 171 and 172:
• Expenditures for active labour
Page 173 and 174:
who lose their jobs. These ensure i
Page 175 and 176:
4.4 Productivity and the economic s
Page 177 and 178:
labour costs at the company level r
Page 179 and 180:
Table 4.4.4 Comparison of the produ
Page 181 and 182:
Figure 4.4.1 Annual average increas
Page 183 and 184:
4.5 Innovation Erik Terk, Katrin M
Page 185 and 186:
Table 4.5.2 Comparison of innovatio
Page 187 and 188:
Table 4.5.4 Comparison of the indic
Page 189 and 190:
in order to make the R&D potential
Page 191 and 192:
It is characteristic of the South K
Page 193 and 194:
mechanisms for increasing their sta
Page 195 and 196:
Globalisation and Policy Patterns 5
Page 197 and 198:
When Estonia regained its independe
Page 199 and 200:
5.2 The impacts of globalisation an
Page 201 and 202:
Table 5.2.2 Support of the differen
Page 203 and 204:
5.3 Development policies Erik Terk,
Page 205 and 206:
• C -the “Estonia-centred” su
Page 207 and 208:
Figure 5.4.1 Support for the possib
Page 209:
Summary Erik Terk Estonia is part o
Page 212 and 213:
ehavioural patterns. Therefore, it
Page 214 and 215:
EDR 2012/2013 authors Clemens Buche
Page 216 and 217:
EDR 2012/2013 authors Alari Purju i
Page 218:
Editor-in-Chief: Mati Heidmets Prod
show all

DEVELOPMENT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?