DEVELOPMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 3.3.2 The ranking based on the May 2012 survey, with additional data from 2010, 2008, 2006, and 2004. The proportion of people satisfied with life (proportion of respondents who are very satisfied or generally satisfied, %) 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Sweden 96 94 95 96 98 Denmark 97 96 96 98 97 Luxembourg 95 92 95 96 94 Finland 94 94 94 95 94 Netherlands 92 95 96 95 94 Great Britain 90 87 87 92 92 Belgium 85 85 84 85 91 Germany 84 82 82 84 89 Ireland 93 91 88 88 86 France 82 85 78 83 85 Austria 85 85 84 85 85 Slovenia 90 87 89 85 85 Malta 88 82 85 76 80 Cyprus 90 85 90 82 80 Czech Republic 77 81 82 78 79 EU 27 81 81 77 78 77 Poland 71 71 75 79 75 Spain 86 88 85 77 72 Turkey 71 70 63 65 71 Estonia 70 69 76 73 69 Croatia 70 69 69 69 67 Slovakia 59 66 69 75 67 Latvia 55 60 63 60 66 Lithuania 54 60 60 50 62 Italy 76 76 64 72 60 Romania 48 43 53 36 48 Hungary 50 55 47 50 42 Bulgaria 32 37 40 38 40 Portugal 59 55 52 44 34 Greece 66 67 65 42 31 Source: Standard Eurobarometer. Figure 3.3.1 Life satisfaction and happiness in the EU countries. Happiness Index Bulgaria Hungary Greece Latvia Estonia Slovakia Czech Republic Lithuania Romania Portugal Italy Slovenia Poland EL-27 Cyprus Germany France Malta Great Britain Belgium Ireland Spain Austria Netherlands Luxembourg Sweden Life Satisfaction 5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 7,5 8,0 8,5 Finland Gallup’s “ladder of good life”. Estonia and the reference states are indicated in yellow. As expected, the citizens of the richer states position themselves on the higher steps of the ladder; but there are several states at the top of the ladder, where the income levels are significantly lower, for example, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Panama. In the ranking of the world’s states, Estonia is down in the 70s, and in the Gallup ranking, we find ourselves on the same step of the ladder with Cuba, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. The life satisfaction of the European Union Member States and the candidate states, and its changes, are illustrated by the Eurobarometer, which asks the following: „On the whole are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied or not at all satisfied with the life you lead?“ Table 3.3.2 shows the percentage of those who, in May of 2012, answered positively to the Eurobarometer’s question about life satisfaction, compared to previous Denmark Index Source: Eurofound, 2009 5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 7,5 8,0 8,5 years. Both the ranking and the changes in the last ten years allude to a connection between life satisfaction and the wealth of the states, as well as to the changes taking place in those states. In the countries that continue to be faced by economic worries – Portugal, Greece and Italy – the difficulties of daily life are reflected in the reduction of the percentage of people who are satisfied with their lives. In five of the EU states, the majority of the people (i.e. over 50%) were dissatisfied with their lives. In the period from 2004 to 2012, the proportion of people satisfied with their lives in Estonia held steady, 124 Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
at about 70%. In Latvia and Lithuania, the proportion of satisfied people has increased during this period; if at the beginning of the century, slightly more than half of our southern neighbours were satisfied with life, currently, the percentage of satisfied people has reach about 2/3 in both states. The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound 2011) tries to measure life satisfaction along with happiness. The Eurofound question about happiness is formulated as follows: “Taking all things together, on a scale 1 to 10, how happy you would say you are? Here 1 means you are very unhappy and 10 means you are very happy.” The question about life satisfaction is the following: “All things concerned, how satisfied would you say you are with your life in these days? Please tell me on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means very dissatisfied and 10 means very satisfied.” In Figure 3.3.1 it appears that in the case of most nations, the assessment of happiness is slightly higher than the assessment of satisfaction. And the gap between the assessments of satisfaction and happiness is greater, the lower the general life satisfaction level. Similarly to other researchers, the authors of this report also conclude that life satisfaction primarily reflects actual economic conditions and living standard; but the sense of happiness is connected to objective conditions more indirectly, and also includes a strong personal component, and is influenced by the cultural background. (Eurofound 2009). People’s assessments of their well-being are also used in many “combined” measures, of which, one of the most ambitious is the Happy Planet Index (HPI). This is compiled by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) (see http://www.neweconomics.org/). This think tank, which has operated in Great Britain since 1986, clearly contrasts itself with the dominant economic, environmental protection and social paradigm of the Western world. Among other things, the foundation focuses on such topics like eliminating the debt burden of developing countries, ethical commerce, and social investments, and they have tried to place pressure on the G8, etc. The foundation favours the introduction of new ways of viewing development and progress, by calling this sustainable well-being. In this context, they have also created the Happy Planet Index, which combines subjective well-being with life expectancy and the ecological footprint (HPI = Experienced Well-being x Life Expectancy/Ecological Footprint). The index value is increased by the number of happy years of life, but decreased by a large ecological footprint. In summary, the index value should allude to how successful the states have been in ensuring their populations good and happy lives, while also enabling the same for future generations. (The Happy ... 2012, 3). The ranking of states, based on the HPI (see Table 3.3.3), is totally different from the one provided to us by both the more objective indicators (freedom, wealth, democracy), and the rankings based on subjective well-being. According to the HPI, the world’s top countries are mostly small Central American states, where life expectancy is relatively long, people are happy, and Table 3.3.3 Ranking of the countries based on the Happy Planet Index, 2012. The 10 top and bottom countries, and the reference countries. Top and bottom 10 1. Costa Rica 64,0 2. Vietnam 60,4 3. Colombia 59,8 4. Belize 59,3 5. El Salvador 58,9 6. Jamaica 58,5 7. Panama 57,8 8. Nicaragua 57,1 9. Venezuela 56,8 10. Guatemala 56,9 ... 142. Republic of South Africa 28,2 143. Kuwait 27,1 144. Niger 26,8 145. Mongolia 26,8 146. Bahrain 26,6 147. Mali 26,0 148. Central African Republic 25,3 149. Qatar 25,2 150. Chad 24,7 151. Botswana 22,6 Reference countries 1. Costa Rica 64,0 15. Israel 55,2 19. Chile 53,9 28. New Zealand 51,6 34. Switzerland 50,3 48. Austria 47,1 63. South Korea 43,8 65. Canada 43,6 67. Netherlands 43,1 70. Finland 42,7 73. Ireland 42.4 87. Slovenia 40,2 89. Slovakia 40,1 90. Singapore 39,8 92. Czech Republic 39,4 93. Uruguay 39,3 104. Hungary 37,2 110. Denmark 36,6 117. Estonia 34,9 Source: The Happy Planet Index: 2012 Report Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013 125
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 and 102: of the state’s development are en
Page 103 and 104: Table 2.9.1 The positions of Estoni
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: Table 3.3.1 Experienced Well-Being
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?