DEVELOPMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2.3.3 Comparison of Estonia’s social capital indicators with the indicators for Latvia and Lithuania (percentage of positive answers among the respondents) Figure 2.3.3 Communities’ minority tolerance index in the OECD countries in 2010 (% of respondents with high tolerance indicators) Has donated money to a charity during the last month Has helped a stranger during the last month Is married Has attended a house of worship during the last week Gets support from friends and family in case of difficulties Believes that most people can be trusted Has volunteered during the last month Estonia 19.2 40.9 40.8 12.1 90.9 34 21.5 Latvia 34.2 39.9 49.7 19.7 83.6 13.1 11.8 Lithuania 20.6 36.8 51.6 26.9 91.1 25.5 11.1 Source: The 2012 Legatum Prosperity Index Percentage Canada Australia New Zealand Netherlands Ireland USA Denmark Sweden 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Figure 2.3.2 Social capital indicators in Estonia and some other European countries Thinks that most people can be trusted Thinks that people are mostly helpful Socialises with friends, colleagues and relatives at least once a week France UK Germany Norway Belgium Percentage 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Finland Denmark OECD average Finland Switzerland Netherlands Chile Switzerland Estonia Ireland Austria Slovenia Italy Greece All Slovakia Czech Rep. Hungary Lithuania Rep. of Korea Hungary Slovakia Slovenia Czech Rep. Israel Poland Turkey Greece Estonia Percentage 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Source: European Social Survey 2010, author’s calculations Percentage 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Source: OECD 2011 76 Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
strongest, while a very small percentage of the population has done volunteer work, donated to charities, or helped someone in trouble. An important component of social capital is trust and the willingness to help people. Based on the data of the European Social Survey, Estonia places higher than even the European average in this regard. Compared to the other young democracies, the involvement of the Estonian population in social communication and the positive attitude toward their fellow citizens is even better than in the post-Communist states, not to mention Greece, where not only the economy, but all the social capital indicators are at the absolute minimum (Figure 2.3.2.) The answer to the question of whether other people can be trusted was also included in the 2009 Gallup World Poll. In Denmark, 62% stated that they trust others, 59% in Finland, 51% in New Zealand, 47% in the Netherlands, and 45% in Switzerland. With its 34%, Estonia was in 21 st place in the world in regard to this indicator. The countries that have levels of trust in other people similar to Estonia’s included Taiwan (36%) and Singapore (33%), and Ireland (31%) was quite close to Estonia’s level. At the same time, the trust level in Hungary was only 13%, in Slovenia 15%, and in Slovakia 21%. The trust indicators are also low in the Latin American states (26% in Uruguay, 14% in Costa Rica and Chile). For Estonia, an important factor in the reduction of social capital is the heterogeneity of the population and the large proportion of the migrant population. The situation of the minorities (immigrant population) is also reflected in the sub-index of the Legatum’s social capital index – the personal freedom sub-index – which measures the situation in regard to individual freedom of choice, expression, movement and belief, as well as social tolerance. In 2012, Estonia ranked very low in this sub-index, being in only 74 th place. The reason for the modest result is, primarily, the indicator for tolerance – only 55.8% find that Estonia is a good place for minorities to live. Estonia’s results are on a comparable level with those of Latvia and Lithuania (who are in 112 th and 93 rd place, respectively) but clearly lagged behind most of the reference states (only Israel had a lower tolerance indicator than Estonia, and even Latvia). Estonia’s problems with tolerance are also confirmed by the corresponding OECD indicators, where Estonia is ranked last among the OECD member states in the tolerance ranking (Figure 2.3.3). At the same time, if we look at the data contained in the European Social Survey, we see that the answers to the specific question related to tolerance, the attitudes of the Estonian population toward minorities are not the most negative at all (Figure 2.3.4). Figure 2.3.4 Tolerance toward specific minority groups in Estonia, and in some other European countries Gays and lesbians should be allowed to live as they wish Immigrants enrich our country’s culture Percentage Finland Denmark Netherlands Switzerland Averagae in Europe Ireland Czech Rep. Hungary Slovakia Estonia Greece Lithuania Slovenia 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percentage 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Source: European Social Survey 2010, author’s calculations 2.3.3 In conclusion When comparing Estonia to the small wealthy European states, we see great differences not only in material wellbeing, but also in regard to the people’s level of civic activism, participation in societal life, trust and willingness to help each other, as well as tolerance toward minorities. All this combined comprises social capital, and increasing it is just as important for the achievement of wellbeing as the growth of economic wealth. To achieve changes in the fields of political culture and participation, raising the functioning capability of CSOs will not suffice. Changes also have to occur in the understandings about the role of the citizenry as decision makers, thereby ensuring that the social groups that are currently not being included are involved in policymaking. References 1. European Social Survey 2010 – http://ess.nsd.uib.no/ess/round5/ 2. Legatum 2012 Prosperity Index – www.prosperity.com 3. OECD 2011 – Society at a Glance 2011: OECD Social Indicators. - http://books.google.ee/books?id=3Y-GYe5H5dc- C&pg=PA26&dq=OECD+2011,+Society+at+a+glance+2011:+O- ECD+social+Indicators&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M3dAUbiDDe6Z0A- WKuYGwDw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA 4. Putnam, R. (1995). “Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America,” PS: Political Science and Politics, 28, 4, 664–683. 5. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. 6. Vetik, R. 2012. Eesti poliitika ja valitsemine 1991-2011. Ed. Raivo Vetik, Tallinn: Tallinn University Press, Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013 77
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: political participation are general
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?