DEVELOPMENT

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