DEVELOPMENT

Summary:
Paradoxes of the Estonian quality of life
Anu Toots
In this chapter, we have focused on the level of social
welfare and the quality of life. We have examined
them, based on economics, psychology, sociology,
political science and ecology. We have also turned to
the classical indicators of well-being like GDP, the Gini
index, the energy intensity of the economy; as well
as innovative measures like satisfaction with public
services, the quality of social relations and subjective
satisfaction.
Although life in Estonia is not as good as in
many other countries, Estonia and Chile are the states
that the OECD points to as the ones that have made
remarkable progress in the last decade. (OECD 2011:
24). It is true that our social protection budget has
recovered, work and family life is better balanced than
in many countries, the communities are strong and
the general educational level is high. However, many
aspects of Estonia’s success are very fragile. During the
2008 economic crisis, the people’s ability to cope in
Estonia was hit harder than in most other EU states.
During the crisis years, the deprivation index almost
doubled in Estonia, the Gini index also increased,
and differences in the state of health expanded across
income groups. Unlike in Western Europe, difficulties
in coping were experienced in Estonia also by many
people in the highest income quintile. This sharp
setback in the material well-being is explainable by
two reasons. Firstly, the decline in well-being started
from a boom, not from a normal level of development,
which made the losses seem bigger. Secondly, Estonian
society is poor, in an East European way. This means
that the incomes of high-income people here are similar
to those of the medium-income groups in Western
Europe, and therefore, the upper classes become
instantly vulnerable when economic conditions worsen.
Despite the fact that, for historical and political reasons,
Estonia lacks the preconditions for a high level of
well-being and quality of life, it would be wrong to argue
that nothing can be achieved by appropriate policies. Our
quality of life indicators are weak primarily in the fields
where public policy is lacking (e.g. housing and spatial
planning), or where the reforms have halted (e.g. healthcare;
tax policies). If the state does not intervene, the situation
is regulated by the market, and this is accompanied
by the commodification that is inherent to the market
situation– services can only be consumed by those who
have the purchasing power. As a consequence, compared
to Europe, the differences in Estonia by income groups,
in the quality of housing, health and assessments of some
areas of life (social welfare, healthcare) are very large.
Estonia’s task, in the next few years, should be to help
the weaker members of society to catch up, empowering
them and providing them with a positive life perspective.
Now, after the economic crisis has crested and the
markets have stabilised, we could – or even should –
ask, what direction should Estonia move in, and how?
Hereafter, economic performance alone will not increase
the quality of life, if the growth in GDP is not accompanied
by a reduction in income inequality, and if the
GDP does not improve the coping ability of households
(Abbot, Wallace, 2012). Estonia’s success, which is
based on fiscal policies, must be brought to the micro
level – to impact people’s everyday lives. In addition,
it is worth remembering that while wealth is important
for well-being, it is of key importance only in the
elementary phases of development, when most people
are worried about making ends meet. For the societies
and people that have left the poverty zone (including
a large part of Estonia’s population), the quality of life,
in the broader sense, becomes increasingly important.
Therefore, when planning Estonia’s strategic perspectives
for the future, welfare has to be viewed in the broader
context, by supplementing economic indicators with
social and ecological ones. When defining our future
goals, we cannot ignore the contradictory phenomena of
our current situation, which could be called paradoxes
of Estonian quality of life.
Firstly, Estonian people have contradictory attitudes
toward wealth and the welfare state. On the one
hand, public surveys show that austerity is perceived
as the normal order; the public is reconciled to the
fragile welfare state and small social support, and try
to manage on its own. On the other hand, many people
consider the income inequality in Estonia to be too
high, and believe the generous governmental welfare
provisions typical of industrial societies should be the
norm. Unfortunately, there are no signs in Estonia of
this kind of welfare state; although, there are signs of a
wasteful economy of the industrial era. Yet, it is unclear
how Estonia will transit to post-modernity, so that this
will be accompanied by an improvement in the quality
of life, encompassing everyone.
Secondly, the level of Estonian civil society and
citizens’ engagement is relatively high, though apolitical.
Apolitical means that the citizenry does not participate
meaningfully in lawmaking and existing consultation
processes are not sufficiently open and transparent.
Thus, significant know-how is left unused, as well as
the possibility to enhance the legitimacy of government.
The current situation can be described as standing at a
crossroads. On the one hand, the Estonian people are
more critical than other Europeans about the quality of
public services, and about their own ability to cope. On
the other hand, we differ from the other post-Communist
countries by a clear optimism about the future. Meaningful
involvement in public governance could significantly
reinforce this optimism.
Thirdly, using the optimism concerning the
future as an engine could be endangered by the people’s
low level of self-esteem. The people of Estonia
146
Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013