DEVELOPMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

so in the future. Figure 1.5.7 shows that the number of people in Estonia who have never signed a petition for any reason has continually increased since 1990 (23%), and reached 57% in 2011. At the same time, the number of people who have signed a petition, or are considering doing so in the future, has decreased year-by-year. In the comparison of the world’s countries, based on these indicators, Estonia is positioned between Turkey and Zimbabwe, while, for instance, in New Zealand, the percentage of people who have signed a petition is 83%, and only 3% have never done it or would never do it under any circumstances (see Figure 1.5.8). However, Estonia’s position in the aforementioned ranking cannot be unequivocally interpreted, since there can be two different reasons for not participating in petitions: (a) the lack of political or civil activism or (b) the restriction of political freedoms, which reduces the likelihood of signing protests. Summarising the changes that have occurred in the values that stress survival versus self-expression during the last 10 years, it must be said that the Estonian population’s general trust in others have steadily increased, as has the sense of happiness and satisfaction with life. To some extent, the tolerance toward minorities has also increased. All of this could provide evidence that, on the map of world values, Estonia could slowly be moving from stressing values related to survival to placing greater importance on self-expressive values. At the same time, Estonia continues to be positioned in the group of the former Soviet Republics and African countries, where the percentage of people that stress post-materialistic values is 5% or even less. And this percentage has not notably changed during the last 20 years. Even more, during 20 years, the number of people in Estonia who would not sign a protest under any circumstances has doubled, reaching 57% in 2011. Based on Inglehart and Welzel’s (2005) theory of cultural change, the latter speaks for the importance of survival values. 1.5.7 Has Estonia’s position on the cultural map of the world changed? Based on existing data, and not knowing whether, and to what extent, changes have taken place in people’s values elsewhere in the world, one can cautiously argue that Estonia’s position on the map of world values has not notably changed, compared to 1999. In 2011, compared to the people of other countries, Estonia’s population still considered secular-rational values to be more important, while also placing greater emphasis on survival rather than self-expressive values. The increase in trust, well-being and tolerance among Estonia’s residents during the last decades provides evidence of a small shift in the direction of self- expressive values. However, apparently, Estonia’s socio- economic development has not been sufficient, to date, to ensure the population a material and physical sense of security, and thereby, also the emergence of stronger post-materialistic values. Figure 1.5.8 Percentage of people living in various states of the world in2010-2012, who have signed a petition (i.e. as a form of political protest that people can participate in), might do so in the future, or would never under any circumstances do it. Would never participate Might participate Have participated Percentage 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 New Zealand Sweden USA Japan Trinidad and T South Korea Spain Poland Cyprus Colombia Peru Mexico Uruguay Chile Turkey Estonia Zimbabwe Ecuador Russia Philippines Nigeria Ghana Armenia Ukraine Kazakhstan Morocco Malaysia Kyrgyzstan Azerbaijan Percentage 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Source: World Values Survey, 6 th wave, 2010-2012. Figure 1.5.9 Percentage of people living in Estonia, in 2011, by various birth cohorts that believe that homosexuality is never justified. Percentage 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1930- 1939 1940- 1949 1950- 1959 1960- 1969 1970- 1979 Source: World Values Survey, 6 th wave, 2011. 1980- 1989 1990 and later 56 Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
The fact that Estonia’s position on the map of world values has generally remained the same does not mean that the population’s values have not changed at all during the last 20 years. There are a number of studies that have examined the value change in Estonia in the period following re-independence (see, for instance, Lauristin et al. 1997; Tart 2011) which show that a significant shift towards hedonistic as well as post-modern or Western values took place during the transition period (1991– 2003; Kalmus & Vihalemm 2008; Vihalemm & Kalmus 2009). The latter is partially confirmed by the data of the World Values Survey, according to which, since the mid-1990s, the importance of so-called post-modern and self-expressive values, such as a general trust of people, a sense of well-being and tolerance has slowly increased. At the same time, regardless of the growth of these indicators, compared to the people in Scandinavia, for instance, Estonia’s residents continue to be considerably less trusting, less tolerant and less happy, and tend to place greater emphasis on fighting rising prices and maintaining order in the state than on the general freedom of speech and political participation. If we think of Estonia’s economic development during the last decade (which regardless of the complicated situation in the world economy, has been characterised by the growth of both the GDP and exports), should we have expected a greater emphasis on self-expressive values in Estonia than current data indicates? According to Inglehart’s (1997) socialisation hypothesis, which is described above, values change steadily as the society’s wealth increases, through generational turnover, whereas the basis for the value shift is the economic situation in the society during a person’s formative years, i.e. during childhood and youth. Therefore, a state’s socio-economic development is not accompanied by a sudden change in values. People’s values are relatively conservative, and they may not exactly follow the changes in the economy and social organisation of life. Based on this approach, we really have no reason to expect greater changes in values during the last decade, because economic development and the growth of wealth did not start in Estonia until the mid- 2000s. Consequently, as socio-economic development continues, we should expect to see a more significant emergence of self-expressive values in “Generation Z” which now consist of 10-years-olds, and those somewhat older and younger. It won’t be possible to check this hypothesis until the new data collection waves of the World Values Survey are completed, which will hopefully include Estonia, in a dozen or so years. The latest data from the autumn of 2011 indicates that every subsequent generation, with one important exception, actually supports self-expressive values more than the previous generation. The exception is the generation of “free Estonia’s” children, who were born in the early 1990s, and whose values are moving back to a greater emphasis on survival, or to less political activism, less trust and less tolerance than the two previous generations (see, for instance, Figure 1.5.9). Future studies must provide the answers to the questions of whether this somewhat reactionary value shift will be permanent, and what the reasons are for this (i.e. the complicated economic and socio-political situations in Estonia in the early 1990s, etc.). The focus and volume of this chapter does not allow for a more detailed analysis of value changes separately by Estonians and non-Estonians, but earlier research has found considerable differences in their value preferences (see, for instance, Magun & Rudnev 2010; Tart 2011). Data from the last wave of the World Values Survey (2011) shows that the values of the Estonian- and Russian-speaking populations differ significantly only in regard to one dimension – that of survival versus self-expression. Compared to the Estonians, the values related to survival predominate slightly more among Russian-speaking people, which, as a whole, may tilt Estonia slightly to the left on the cultural map of the world 5 . However, the difference in value preferences between the two language groups is not excessively large, and becomes even smaller when the Estonian and non-Estonian cohorts born in the 1980s and 1990s are compared. Therefore, the World Values Survey results confirm that the values of Estonians and non-Estonians are becoming more similar through generational turnover (Sõmer 2011). 1.5.8 Conclusions In conclusion, it should be emphasised that Inglehart and his colleagues’ approach to values and the cultural map of the world (Inglehart & Welzel 2005, 2010) do not lay claim to the absolute truth, and it is only one of many theories of cultural values and cultural dimensions that have been suggested by various researchers through the years. On the one hand, the basis for the popularity of Inglehart and his colleagues’ approach is its simplicity and, at the same time, its great capacity for generalisation – only two clear and easily interpreted value dimensions make it possible to explain over two-thirds of the total crossnational variance. The second advantage of the study is that the surveys have been carried out over a period of 30 years, which makes it possible to speak about value trends and their changes over time. In addition, as mentioned above, the reliability of the World Values Survey research is increased further by the fact that at least the survival versus self-expression value dimension has been shown to be strongly related to other well-known cultural dimensions such as individualism–collectivism (Hofstede 1980) and autonomy-conservation(Schwartz 1994), which all express people’s wishes and aspirations for greater autonomy and self-determination. Therefore, regardless 5 In the case of the five qualities that form the basis for the survival vs. self-expression value dimension, the greatest difference between the two language groups appears in their attitude toward homosexuality. If 42% of the Estonian-speaking respondents think that homosexuality is never justified, among the Russian-speaking respondents the corresponding indicator is 59%. The differences between the two language groups also continue to exist in the younger cohorts: for example, of the young people born between 1980 and 1989, 24% of the Estonian-speaking respondents think that homosexuality is never justified, while 41% of the Russian-speaking respondents take this position. Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013 57
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: Figure 1.5.5 Percentage of the Esto
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?