DEVELOPMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the obesity index in the U.S. is about 33%, 20% in Estonia, but less than 5% in China and the Republic of Korea (WHO 2008). The objective health indicators do not reflect, oneto-one, the subjective assessment of health. For instance, in the U.S. in 2009, 90% of the people considered their health to be good or very good (the highest OECD indicator), but in Japan only 32% did so (OECD 2011). In the same year, 52% of the people in Estonia, considered their health to be good or very good, while two years later this proportion had dropped by almost 10%, to 44% (EQLS 2011). With these indicators, Estonia ranks at the bottom both in the OECD and the EU. However, Estonia’s most serious problem is not the low satisfaction with their own health, but the large difference in the level of satisfaction between the low and high income groups. 74% of people in the highest income quintile consider their health to be good or very good; in the lowest income group the same indicator is to times lower, i.e. 32% (Figure 3.4.3). Although, the wealthier people assess their health status higher everywhere; in Estonia the gap is largest.It considerably exceeds even the level of countries, where the private healthcare is dominant(e.g. the U.S., Republic of Korea, and Switzerland). The explanation is probably that, to a great extent, health depends on lifestyles not only on healthcare. Only 26% of people in Estonia report that the cost of the healthcare is for them a problem, hindering access to the healthcare. By this indicator Estonia performs above the EU average (EQLS 2011).. On the other hand, Estonia has the greatest difference in life expectancy between people with high and low levels of education. A 30-year-old man with higher education will live 17 years longer than a poorly educated man in Estonia, while this difference is only four to six years in Western Europe. Among women, life expectancy is also related to the educational level, but here the difference is more modest (9 years), but the difference between Estonia and Western Europe is still large (Eurostat, 2010). Thus, health related components of quality of life can be efficiently improved by investing more in other components of human development, primarily into education. 3.4.10 Public services Although life quality and satisfaction is associated to many individual factors, such as socio-economic status, values and attitudes, the government also plays an important role in t promoting the quality of life, through its public policies. Traditionally, the quality of the society has been measured through interpersonal and institutional trust, as well as civic engagement. The European Quality of Life Survey has elaborated this approach, by asking people how satisfied they are with the main fields of social policy. When comparing Estonia to the reference countries, one can draw two conclusions. Firstly, in the post-communist states (Slovenia, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary) all public services get lower assessment than in the established Western European countries. Ireland, which underwent economic turbulence recently, is more similar to Eastern than Western Europe. Secondly, the public satisfaction with public services in Estonia is at the EU 27 average in some policy fields, but remains considerably belowe average in others, such as healthcare, long-term care and the pension system.In general, the people in Estonia stand out for their critical view– even the education system, which, for example, achieves a high, 5 th position, in the OECD Better Life Index, gets a lower rating than is given by the people in the countries where the objective education indicators are lower. (see Figure 3.4.4a). The differences between the countries can also be caused by the different expectations that people have concerning public services, as well as by the way that the policies actually cope with the provision of services. Therefore, in addition to comparingcountries, it is important to examine the opinions of various respondent groups. Generally, poorer people give a lower assessment to services than respondents from higher income groups, and young people give a higher assessment than the elderly. However, statistically, these differences are insignificant. Rather, the systemic difference in assessments is based on whether the respondent has used the service, or not. Those who actually use the services are as a rule more satisfied than those who have not. 3.4.11 Changes in the quality of life in Europe and Estonia As mentioned above, the OECD Better Life Index has only been compiled once (2011), which makes impossible to evaluate the change in the quality of life in the developedcountries around the world. However, this possibility does exist for the European Union, because the European Quality of Life Survey has already been conducted three times. However, changes in the research methodology do not always allow to compare all three surveys – in 2003, 2007 and 2011. When comparing 2003 and 2007, the Central and Eastern European countries are still poorer, and lag behind the European average in most indicators of the quality of life (Alber, Fahey, Saraceno, 2008). As a result of the economic crisis, the number of people having difficulties in making end meet increased in almost all of the EU countries. In Estonia, France, Greece, Ireland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Great Britain, there were 10% more of these people in 2011 than in 2007. The deprivation index also increased, whereas, the downward change was considerably larger in Southern and Eastern Europe than in Finland, Sweden, Austria, Denmark or the Netherlands. Compared to the pre-crisis period, Estonia’s indicator is the worst – the deprivation index has almost doubled here (Eurofound 2012). The economic standard of living also affected people’s satisfaction with life, although the impact differed in Eastern and Western Europe. Firstly, life quality in Eastern Europe is more clearly related to economic factors (Bohnke, 2008). Secondly, the volatility of satisfaction in latest EU member states is higher and affected by the 136 Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
Figure 3.4.5 Changes in the deprivation index in result of the economic crisis (2011 compared to 2007) and the mean number of items people could not afford. 2007 2011 Index Bulgaria Hungary Estonia Greece Latvia Lithuania Romania Poland Cyprus Slovakia Portugal Malta Czech Republic Spain EU 27 Ireland Great Britain Slovenia France Belgium Germany Italy Finland Netherlands Austria Denmark Sweden Luxembourg Index Source: EQLS 2007 ja EQLS 2011 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 financial crisis more than that in the old member states. In many Central and Eastern European countries (especially in Estonia, Slovakia and Lithuania), satisfaction with the standard of living increased very rapidly between 2003 and 2007 (9%, on the average), and thereafter, decreased just as rapidly. In the Baltic States, the decline in satisfaction was directly related to the decrease in GDP, while, in France, for example, the GDP remained more or less stable, but the satisfaction with the standard of living declined considerably. Unlike the fluctuations in material well-being, family relations seem to be more stable, and changes in the satisfaction with them were less than one percent, on the average, in 2007 - 2011. The impact of the economic crisis on close relations is not differentacross countries, but rather, across socio-economic classes. People with lower income and education level feel greater work and family stress, and their contacts with their parents have decreased. This shows that, in times of crisis, the empowerment of the weaker members of society becomes especially important, so as to help them maintain control over their lives (Abbot, Wallace, 2012). In addition to households, the economic crisis also puts governments, and the provision of public services, in a difficult position. Have the austerity measures reduced the public satisfaction with services? Based on the European Quality of Life Survey, between 2007 and 2011, on average, this has changed very little, if at all (0.1%), in Europe. On the other hand, in Estonia, satisfaction with all public services has declined, especially with the pension system and the health care services. Since the people between 40 and 50 are the most dissatisfied with the pension system, it can be concluded that the decline in the satisfaction is not caused by the modest level of today’s pension benefits, but by the sudden changes being made in the pension system (e.g. the suspension of state payments into the second pillar of the pension scheme during the years 2009 and 2011). Similarly, satisfaction with the education system may have decreased because of the disputed secondary and higher education reform, the goals and implementation of which was not clear to the public (Aavakivi, 2012; Ader, 2012). Figure 3.4.6 Change in the public satisfactionwith public services, 2007–2011; average values, on a ten point scale, where 0 = is the lowest, and 10 = the highest rating. Estonia: 2007 2011 Europe average: 2007 2011 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 Average values 3 2 1 0 3 2 1 0 Pension system Healthcare services Social housing Long-term (elderly) care services Education system Childcare services Public transport Source: EQLS 2007 and EQLS 2011 Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013 137
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 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: Figure 3.4.4c Perceived quality of
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?