DEVELOPMENT
The pdf-version - Eesti Koostöö Kogu
The pdf-version - Eesti Koostöö Kogu
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
3.3.4<br />
In conclusion<br />
When examining Estonia’s position in the rankings for<br />
subjective well-being, the importance of the particular<br />
viewpoint and the measuring instrument becomes evident.<br />
The ranking of the states depends on how subjective<br />
well-being is examined – are people asked to assess the<br />
situation today, or are views of the future being considered;<br />
are people asked to compare themselves based on a<br />
“ladder of good life”, or to assess their life satisfaction and<br />
feeling of happiness.<br />
In comparative assessments, people in Estonia are<br />
the most critical. On the “ladder of good life”, we are<br />
located in the seventh tenth of the world, which is significantly<br />
lower than our position in wealth of human<br />
development rankings. We can guess that, in the case of<br />
the assessment method that asks the respondent to “compare<br />
yourself to the best possible life”, our assessments are<br />
affected by the fact that images of the “best possible life”<br />
are close by and right before our eyes in the form of the<br />
Nordic countries. Therefore, the bar is placed very high<br />
for us, and this also shapes our assessment of reality.<br />
Estonia achieves a somewhat better position when,<br />
rather than a comparison, people are simply asked to<br />
assess their life satisfaction. About 2/3 of the people in<br />
Estonia are more or less satisfied with their lives. However,<br />
when we place this indicator, which is quite good,<br />
into an international comparison, we, again, come out<br />
significantly below the EU average.<br />
Estonia achieves the best positions in the assessments<br />
related to the future. In Estonia, about twothirds<br />
of the population views the future positively,<br />
which is about 10% higher than the EU average. Our<br />
better position in the optimism ranking is based on<br />
the fact that, in many EU countries, as a result of the<br />
economic crisis, the people’s visions of the future,<br />
compared to the present situation, have become more<br />
pessimistic. Also, in comparison to the reference states,<br />
Estonia stands out for a relatively low assessment of<br />
the current situation, while clearly having hopes for a<br />
better future.<br />
Therefore, Estonia’s challenge for the future could be<br />
to encourage the one-third who are dissatisfied with life,<br />
and are pessimistic -- to help them catch up, and provide<br />
them with a positive perspective. At the same time,<br />
attractive development prospects should also be provided<br />
for those who have succeeded, considering the fact that<br />
being satisfied and happy increasingly means more than<br />
just the amount of money in your bank account, and<br />
opportunities for self-realisation become more important<br />
(Oishi, Diener, Lucas, Suh 1999).<br />
Can our position in various subjective well-being<br />
rankings tell us something about the concept, which<br />
is constantly circulating in our public space, about the<br />
anxious, negative and pessimistic mindset of the people<br />
in Estonia? In the case of the “good life” ranking, in<br />
which our subjective assessment of life is below several<br />
objective well-being indicators, one could conclude that<br />
the popular tendency here is to be more critical about<br />
oneself and one’s life, than is the case elsewhere in the<br />
world. At the same time, we cannot be reproached for<br />
a lack of optimism, at least in the context of our European<br />
Union friends and colleagues we seem to be very<br />
efficient. On the one hand, we are, perhaps, even too<br />
critical about the “goodness” of our current life, but we<br />
are still clearly optimistic about the future – this is the<br />
reality of Estonia today.<br />
References<br />
1. Diener, E. (2009). Culture and Well-Being. The Collected Works<br />
of Ed Diener. Springer, London.<br />
2. Diener, E., Diener, M., Diener, C. (1995). “Factors Predicting the<br />
Subjective Well-being of Nations,” Journal of Personality and<br />
Social Psychology, 69/5, APA, N.Y.<br />
3. Easterlin, R. (2003). Do Aspirations Adjust to the Level of<br />
Achievement? A Look at the Financial and Family Domains. Prepared<br />
for European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop<br />
on Income, Interactions and Subjective Well-Being, Paris, France,<br />
25–26 September. www.delta.ens.fr/swb/EasterlinParis.pdf.<br />
4. Eurofound (2012). Third European Quality of Life Survey -<br />
Quality of life in Europe: Impacts of the Crisis.<br />
5. Helliwell, J., Putnam, R. (2004). “The Social Context of Well-Being,”<br />
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. London, B,<br />
359, rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org<br />
6. Oishi, S., Diener, E., Lucas, R., Suh, E. (1999). “Cross-Cultural<br />
Variations in Predictors of Life Satisfaction: Perspective from Needs<br />
and Values,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25/8, Sage.<br />
7. OECD (2011). Education at a Glance 2011:OECD Indicators,<br />
Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2011-en<br />
8. Seligman, M. (2011). Flourish. A New Understanding of Happiness<br />
and Well-being. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.<br />
9. Spector, P. (1997). Job Satsifaction. Application, Assessment,<br />
Cause and Consequences. Sage, London.<br />
10. Stevenson, B., Wolfers, J. (2008). “Economic Growth and Subjective<br />
Well-Being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox,” Brookings Papers on<br />
Economic Activity, pp. 1–87 Brookings Institution Press, N.Y.<br />
11. Nef (2012). The Happy Planet Index: 2012 Report. A Global<br />
index of Sustainable Well-being. London: New Economics<br />
Foundation, 2012, www.happyplanetindex.org<br />
128<br />
Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013