DEVELOPMENT

Table 5.4.2
Important cooperation regions for Estonia, % of respondents by group
Entrepreneurs
Economic
policymakers
Politicians
Cultural
figures PhDs Total
Baltic Sea Region 77 79 81 66 70 75
EU 69 59 65 51 66 62
USA 38 17 30 17 25 24
Russia 31 52 60 54 41 50
Other CIS countries 38 24 23 26 14 23
China 31 33 44 49 45 42
As can be seen, the Estonian elite as a whole supports
the more centralised options for the future development
of the EU, whereas the positions of the political elite and
economic elite differ somewhat. The economic elite were
unanimous in their support for the option, in which,
regardless of the centralisation of supplementary functions,
the EU would still remain a union of nation-states.
Among the political elite, this option is also the most
popular, although, one third of them still supports the
movement toward a federal state.
The upward trend in the attitudes that favour the
strengthening of the EU’s authority are corroborated by
the results of the last Eurobarometer, which show a shift
in the attitudes of Estonia’s general public in the same
direction (Public… 2013). However, if we compare the
results of the elite survey, which is used here, to the survey
of the European political and economic elites conducted
between 2007 and 2009, we see that there is a
considerable shift. In the European Elite Survey, Estonia
stood out for its quite rigid opposition to the centralisation
trends inside the European Union (Best et al., 2012),
by taking the most critical position among the states
under observation along with the United Kingdom.
Which states/regions are the ones on which Estonia’s
trade policy should focus more in the next 10 years than
previously? We gave the respondents a list of states and
regions, and asked them to choose the most important
ones. The answers are shown in Table 5.4.2.
From the results, it can be seen that there is a desire
to strengthen the traditional economic relations, as well
as to expand the geography of economic relations. The
assessments of the various elite groups differ only a little,
from each other.
Estonia’s neighbouring market – the Baltic Sea
Region – was named as the area requiring the most
attention (three-quarters of the respondents considered it
necessary to concentrate more on economic ties with the
states in this region; a quarter of the respondents did not
consider this necessary, and therefore thought the focus
of economic policy should be shifted to other regions).
The rest of the European Union placed second – about
60% of the respondents thought it important to focus
on the other EU states. This is logical, because the other
EU states, besides the ones in the Baltic Sea Region, are
clearly underrepresented in the geography of Estonia’s
foreign trade relations. Slightly more than 50% of the
respondents thought it necessary to invest in economic
relations with Russia.
China came in fourth in the list of partners with
whom cooperation should be accelerated (mentioned by
42% of the respondents). However, if we combine China,
as a target of economic policy, with India and the countries
in South-East Asia, East and South Asia move up in
the ranking of the focal points for Estonia’s trade policies,
outpacing both Russia and the entire CIS region (in addition
to Russia, other large states like Ukraine and Kazakhstan).
East Asia moving ahead of the CIS region as a priority
area for Estonia’s economic policy is definitely a very
significant shift. However, what calls for caution, is the
fact that the economic elite, as well as the entrepreneurs
and economic policymakers, express less support for the
development of relations with China, than the sample as a
whole. There is hardly any basis to assume that economic
relations with China will start to develop rapidly, if the
Estonian economic elite do not invest in them.
Relatively weak interest is shown towards the states
and regions in the CIS outside of Russia, and to the U.S.,
which is our top geo-political partner. Both lagged behind
South-East Asia. It should carefully considered why the U.S.
– despite its powerful and high-tech economy – is not seen
as being sufficiently attractive (or accessible?) as a partner for
Estonian economic policy, to warrant an investment in the
intensification of economic ties. Politicians are often thought
to be the factor hindering the development of relations with
Russia, but the politicians’ answers, in our survey, show that
they placed greater value on improved economic relations
with Russia than the sample did on average.
Based on the answers to the questions about Estonia’s
geo-economical perspectives, it can be stated that, on
the whole, the future Estonia requires a multidirectional
and carefully considered economic policy. Some steps
have already been taken in this direction, such as concretising
the economic aspirations related to China, and Asia
generally. Unfortunately, Estonia’s current foreign policy
functions, on the whole, as a “general” foreign policy with
a strong defence policy dominant. There is still a lot of
work to be done in connection with directing our foreign
policy toward the fulfilment of economic policy goals.
References
1. Best, E. et al. (eds.) (2012) The Europe of Elites. A Study of the
Europeanness of Europe’s Political and Economic Elites. Oxford
& New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Public Opinion in the European Union. Tables of Results. Nov.
2012.
206
Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013