DEVELOPMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2.1.3 Development of the transition countries based on the scores in the Management Index 2003–2012 (maximum 10 points) 2012 2010 2008 2006 2004 Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Very good management (8 countries, ranks 1 to 8) Taiwan 1. 7.72 6. 7.12 7. 7.04 5. 7.37 11. 6.9 Uruguay 2. 7.66 1. 7.52 8. 6.93 14. 6.85 6. 7.4 Estonia 3. 7.41 3. 7.33 2. 7.43 7. 7.29 1. 7.9 Brazil 4. 7.29 5. 7.18 15. 6.70 13. 6.86 14. 6.6 Chile 5. 7.15 2. 7.35 1. 7.52 2. 7.51 3. 7.6 Lithuania 5. 7.15 10. 6.91 15. 6.70 9. 7.00 2. 7.7 South Korea 7. 7.05 4. 7.24 6. 7.09 8. 7.25 8. 7.1 Botswana 8. 7.02 7. 7.11 3. 7.33 3. 7.44 4. 7.5 Good management, ranks 9 to 44, 36 countries, incl. Costa Rica 9. 6.95 15. 6.63 15. 6.70 19. 6.63 8. 7.1 Latvia 11. 6.81 13. 6.68 10. 6.86 16. 6.78 21. 6.3 Slovakia 12. 6.80 8. 7.03 5. 7.20 6. 7.32 6. 7.4 Poland 13. 6.79 19. 6.52 53. 5.27 23. 6.36 14. 6.6 Czech Republic 18. 6.57 9. 6.95 20. 6.62 10. 6.95 12. 6.7 Slovenia 18. 6.57 18. 6.55 12. 6.83 4. 7.41 10. 7.0 Singapore 32. 5.99 32. 6.03 32. 6.03 36. 5.78 37. 5.2 Moderately successful management. Total of 43 countries, incl. Hungary 48 5.47 20 6.51 18. 6.67 15. 6.81 12. 6.7 Source: Bertelsmann 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 Table 2.1.4 The components of the most successful transition countries in the Transformation Index in 2012. Index of the general success of the transition (status) 2012 Political transformation result 2012 Economic transformation result 2012 Process management success 2012 Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Czech Republic 1. 9.61 2. 9.65 1. 9.57 18. 6.57 Taiwan 2. 9.54 2. 9.65 2. 9.43 1. 7.72 Slovenia 3. 9.45 2. 9.65 3. 9.25 18. 6.57 Uruguay 4. 9.30 1. 9.95 10. 8.64 2. 7.66 Estonia 5. 9.28 5. 9.55 5. 9.00 3. 7.41 Poland 6. 9.05 8. 9.20 6. 8.89 13. 6.79 Lithuania 7. 9.03 7. 9.35 9. 8.71 5. 7.15 Slovakia 8. 8.88 10. 9.00 7. 8.75 12. 6.80 Chile 9. 8.87 8. 9.20 12. 8.54 5. 7.15 Costa Rica 10. 8.84 6. 9.40 13. 8.29 9. 6.95 South Korea 11. 8.73 12. 8.70 7. 8.75 7. 7.05 Hungary 12. 8.48 17. 8.35 11. 8.61 48. 5.47 Latvia 13. 8.29 11. 8.80 18.* 7.82 11. 6.81 *Based on the 2012 economic transformation sub-index, Latvia dropped out of the group of highly advanced market economies. 64 Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
tioning market economies (15 states), market economies with functional flaws (51 states), poorly functioning market economies (40 states) and rudimentary market economies (7 states). The economic transformation of the Czech Republic, Taiwan, Singapore, and Estonia were rated most highly. The majority of the new EU Member States are also in the group with developed market economies, except for Bulgaria, Latvia and Romania. Russia is classified among the states that have market economies with functional flaws, as are the majority of the other CIS states (Bertelsmann 2012: 41). The uniform strength of the political and economic dimensions have secured top positions for the new European Union Member States, which, by having fulfilled the requirements for membership, have already demonstrated progress in both democratisation and the transition to market economies. In 2003, 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012, there were five new EU Member States among the top ten: the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania and Slovakia. Based on the 2008 index, Poland had dropped out of the top ten; and based on the 2012 index, Hungary dropped out. The only one that was not among in the top ten at any time was Latvia, which is still in the group of democracies with highly advanced market economies. Of the non-European states/areas, the development that occurred in Taiwan from 2009 to 2011 has been given the highest composite score. In democratisation, Uruguay has also gotten an almost maximum score, but its economic development has been more modest. Among the highly advanced states, we also find some of the other reference state in this report – Uruguay, Chile, Costa Rica and the South Korea. All of them can be viewed as developmental leaders in their region. In regard to economic development, Singapore has also been assessed quite highly (9.57 points in 2008, 9.14 in 2010 and 9.18 in 2012), along with the Czech Republic, Taiwan and Slovenia. Based on the Management Index (2012), the transition countries were divided into five groups: with very good management (8 states); good management, but with shortcomings (36 states); moderately successful management (43 states); weak management (27 states); and failed management (14 states) – see Table 2.1.3. According to the Management Index in 2003, 2008, as well as 2010 and 2012, Estonia was one of the most successful transition countries, placing first, second and third position, respectively, and slightly behind, in seventh rank, in 2006. Of the other new EU Member States, only Lithuania and Slovakia are assessed as states with very good management, but not in all the years – Slovakia only four times, and Lithuania twice. Latvia is among the states with good management, but with shortcomings, but has improved its position somewhat in recent years. Based on the 2012 index, Taiwan and Brazil have received significantly better assessments than in previous years. Of the new EU Member States, the assessment of management in Slovakia and Slovenia have decreased somewhat in recent years, and it has fluctuated quite a bit in Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Poland. In the assessment of the management of governance processes, Hungary and Russia have suffered the greatest decrease. In the indices for 2003 to 2010, Hungary was among the countries with good management, but based on the 2012 index, they dropped out of this group, being the only new EU Member State among the moderately successful countries (declined from 12 th position, in 2003, to 48 th , in 2012). Russia has even declined by two country groups – from 31 st , based on the 2003 index (good management, but with shortcomings), to 87 th position in 2006 (moderately successful management), and finally, into the group of countries with weak management (98 th in 2008, 107 th in 2010 and 99 th in 2012). According to the Status Index, in all the years between 1998 and 2011, the political and economic transformation in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Taiwan was consistently more successful than in Estonia. Process management has been, consistently, very successful in Chile, and during the last few years, in Taiwan and Uruguay. However, when combining both indices through the years, Estonia’s transformation result has been better, and its positions in the ranking higher. Great attention was paid to the relative level of difficulty related to the specifics of each country’s development, which was calibrated by using an additional coefficient to make the final determination of the Management Index score. The calibration of the composite Management Index utilised a coefficient that can reduce the score in the final index up to 25% – if the value in the quality of management sub-index is 1.0, it was divided by a coefficient of 1.250; if the value is 1.1, the coefficient is 1.246; if the value is 1.2, the coefficient is 1.242, etc, until a coefficient of 1.0, when the level of difficulty is 10.0. Between 2009 and 2011, the highest level of management difficulty was assigned to Somalia (9.8) and Haiti (9.5). Of the states with moderately successful management, the level of difficulty was highest for the Central African Republic (8.5), Burundi (8.2), Rwanda (7.8) and Mauritania (7.8). Estonia is among the group of countries with relatively good management, with a level of difficulty, in 2012, of 1.9. The lowest level of difficulty is assigned to Slovenia (1.1) and the Czech Republic (1.2). Based on a summary of the Status and Management Indices, based on the analysis of the transformation processes between 1998 and 2011, by the Bertelsmann Foundation, Estonia has been very successful. This is, primarily, thanks to the uniform scores and ranks of both the Status and the Management Index (see Table 2.1.4 and Figure 2.1.1). It is important to note that the values of the process management index can also be comparatively low for successful transition countries (18 th rank for the Czech Republic and Slovenia; even 48 th rank for Hungary), which alludes to a poor capability to cope with crises. In the analytical summaries made on the basis of the Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI) 2012, it is recognised that it no longer makes sense to view the given lead group of countries – eight EU Member States in Eastern and Central Europe, three Latin American and two Asian states (see Table 2.1.3 and Figure 2.1.1) – as transition countries in the context of a transition to democracy and market economies, since this has already occurred. Underway is the consolidation of the Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013 65
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: Table 2.1.1 Structure of the Bertel
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?