DEVELOPMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.3.4 In conclusion When examining Estonia’s position in the rankings for subjective well-being, the importance of the particular viewpoint and the measuring instrument becomes evident. The ranking of the states depends on how subjective well-being is examined – are people asked to assess the situation today, or are views of the future being considered; are people asked to compare themselves based on a “ladder of good life”, or to assess their life satisfaction and feeling of happiness. In comparative assessments, people in Estonia are the most critical. On the “ladder of good life”, we are located in the seventh tenth of the world, which is significantly lower than our position in wealth of human development rankings. We can guess that, in the case of the assessment method that asks the respondent to “compare yourself to the best possible life”, our assessments are affected by the fact that images of the “best possible life” are close by and right before our eyes in the form of the Nordic countries. Therefore, the bar is placed very high for us, and this also shapes our assessment of reality. Estonia achieves a somewhat better position when, rather than a comparison, people are simply asked to assess their life satisfaction. About 2/3 of the people in Estonia are more or less satisfied with their lives. However, when we place this indicator, which is quite good, into an international comparison, we, again, come out significantly below the EU average. Estonia achieves the best positions in the assessments related to the future. In Estonia, about twothirds of the population views the future positively, which is about 10% higher than the EU average. Our better position in the optimism ranking is based on the fact that, in many EU countries, as a result of the economic crisis, the people’s visions of the future, compared to the present situation, have become more pessimistic. Also, in comparison to the reference states, Estonia stands out for a relatively low assessment of the current situation, while clearly having hopes for a better future. Therefore, Estonia’s challenge for the future could be to encourage the one-third who are dissatisfied with life, and are pessimistic -- to help them catch up, and provide them with a positive perspective. At the same time, attractive development prospects should also be provided for those who have succeeded, considering the fact that being satisfied and happy increasingly means more than just the amount of money in your bank account, and opportunities for self-realisation become more important (Oishi, Diener, Lucas, Suh 1999). Can our position in various subjective well-being rankings tell us something about the concept, which is constantly circulating in our public space, about the anxious, negative and pessimistic mindset of the people in Estonia? In the case of the “good life” ranking, in which our subjective assessment of life is below several objective well-being indicators, one could conclude that the popular tendency here is to be more critical about oneself and one’s life, than is the case elsewhere in the world. At the same time, we cannot be reproached for a lack of optimism, at least in the context of our European Union friends and colleagues we seem to be very efficient. On the one hand, we are, perhaps, even too critical about the “goodness” of our current life, but we are still clearly optimistic about the future – this is the reality of Estonia today. References 1. Diener, E. (2009). Culture and Well-Being. The Collected Works of Ed Diener. Springer, London. 2. Diener, E., Diener, M., Diener, C. (1995). “Factors Predicting the Subjective Well-being of Nations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69/5, APA, N.Y. 3. Easterlin, R. (2003). Do Aspirations Adjust to the Level of Achievement? A Look at the Financial and Family Domains. Prepared for European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop on Income, Interactions and Subjective Well-Being, Paris, France, 25–26 September. www.delta.ens.fr/swb/EasterlinParis.pdf. 4. Eurofound (2012). Third European Quality of Life Survey - Quality of life in Europe: Impacts of the Crisis. 5. Helliwell, J., Putnam, R. (2004). “The Social Context of Well-Being,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. London, B, 359, rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org 6. Oishi, S., Diener, E., Lucas, R., Suh, E. (1999). “Cross-Cultural Variations in Predictors of Life Satisfaction: Perspective from Needs and Values,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25/8, Sage. 7. OECD (2011). Education at a Glance 2011:OECD Indicators, Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2011-en 8. Seligman, M. (2011). Flourish. A New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London. 9. Spector, P. (1997). Job Satsifaction. Application, Assessment, Cause and Consequences. Sage, London. 10. Stevenson, B., Wolfers, J. (2008). “Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, pp. 1–87 Brookings Institution Press, N.Y. 11. Nef (2012). The Happy Planet Index: 2012 Report. A Global index of Sustainable Well-being. London: New Economics Foundation, 2012, www.happyplanetindex.org 128 Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
3.4 Quality of life Anu Toots 3.4.1 Measuring the quality of life The concept of the quality of life was introduced by German sociologist Wolfgang Zapf in the middle of the1980s (Glatzer, Zapf, 1984). It combined indicators for objective living conditions with those for subjective well-being, and reflected the dissatisfaction of the research community regarding too narrow approach to the measurement of people’s standard of living. The Easterlin Paradox already illustrated that life satisfaction is not linearly associated with increase of the wealth of society. Other studies had found that, paradoxically, people with very different standards of living can feel happy. Thus, a new construct was required that would combine both the material and non-material, personal and social aspects related thereto. The quality of life, or more simply a good life, became the wanted construct. Although material resources continue to be very important in the organisation of everyday life, people also consider social relations and the level of neighbourhood development to be essential, along with good health, meaningful leisure time and the opportunity to have a say in policies (Noll, 2002, Phillips, 2006; Abbot, Wallace, 2012a). This, far from complete, list already alludes to how complicated the measurement of quality of life can be. The first quality of life indices were compiled in the 1970s by commercial companies, in order to influence investors, leading executives, or wealthy retirees, in choosing locations for their companies or homes. The best-known indices of this kind are the International Living’s Quality of Life Index and the Mercer’s Quality of Living index. In the 1970s, the OECD and the United Nations experimented with measuring the quality of life, but this attempt wasstopped, since comparable and reliable international statistics were not available. In the 2000s, the measurement of life quality became again topical, and many countries started to work out their own indicators. The European Commission ordered the European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS) from the Eurofound in 2003 – an undertaking of symbolic importance. Namely, the study was based on understanding that the quality of life is comprised both of material well-being, as well as of the quality of social context. Thus, the European approach to the measurement of life quality considered such components like the sense of economic security, community involvement and cohesion, and the empowerment of people. A new impetus for measuring well-being and the quality of life was provided by the expert commission convened by N. Sarkozy, which was supposed to create an improved methodology for the combined measurement of economic and social progress. The commission was headed by Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and Jean-Paul Table 3.4.1 Main dimensions and indicators of the OECD Better Life Index (BLI) (2011) Quality of life Health Work-life balance Community Education Civic engagement Environment Safety Life satisfaction Material living conditions Income Jobs Housing Fitoussi, and the main message of the so-called “Stiglitz Commission” stressed the multi-dimensional nature of well-being and its altered focal point in contemporary society (Stiglitz, Sen, Fitoussi, 2009). The Stiglitz Commission worked as an independent think tank; however, today, its positions have been adopted by the European Commission (Eurofound 2012), and by the OECD (2011), as the basis for the measurement of the quality of life. Thereby, the OECD, as an organisation that has, up until now, focused primarily on the economic side of well-being, sent a clear signal that the “soft”, non-material facets of human development are equally important. “Isegi majanduslikult rasketel aegadel, mil majanduskasvu taastamine on oluline mitmete heaoluindikaatorite (nagu hea töökoht või taskukohane eluase) saavutamiseks, peavad poliitika keskmes olema inimeste vajadused, mured ja unistused ning meie ühiskondade jätkusuutlikkus“Even during times of economic hardship, when restoring growth matters for the achievement of many well-being outcomes, such as having a good job or access to affordable housing, at the core of policy action must be the needs, concerns and aspirations of people and the sustainability of our societies(OECD:2011, 14). There is another important focal point in this quote – the OECD measures well-being and the quality of life in order to intervene, to change the situation. Therefore, the chosen measures of well-being are those that can be changed by policies. The above mentioned indices of the commercial companies regard the quality of life levels as predetermined, and the individual’s role is only to make a choice between locations with different levels of quality (e.g. the International Living Index includes weather conditions as one of its components). The EU was initially also an association focusing on economicdevelopment. However, “soft” social values attracted the attention of the European policymakers and analysts earlier than in the OECD. Unlike the OECD Better Life Index, the EU Quality of Life Survey places Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013 129
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 and 126: Table 3.3.1 Experienced Well-Being
Page 127 and 128: at about 70%. In Latvia and Lithuan
Page 129: sign. It seems that the usual view
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?