DEVELOPMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2.5.2 Assessment of the level of corruption in the less corrupt states in the world, in the post-Communist transition states, and in some Southern European states; and the change in Estonia’s position in the ranking of the states, 1998-2011 (Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) on a ten-point scale, with 10=clean; ranking based on 2011) 2011 2010 2009 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank New Zealand 9.5 1. 9.3 1. 9.4 1. 9.3 1. 9.6 1. 9.6 2. 9.5 2. 9.4 3. 9.4 4. Denmark 9.4 2. 9.3 1. 9.3 2. 9.3 1. 9.5 4. 9.5 3. 9.5 2. 9.8 2. 10.0 1. Finland 9.4 2. 9.2 4. 8.9 6. 9.0 5. 9.6 1. 9.7 1. 9.7 1. 10.0 1. 9.6 2. Sweden 9.3 4. 9.2 4. 9.2 3. 9.3 1. 9.2 6. 9.2 6. 9.3 5. 9.4 3. 9.5 3. Singapore 9.2 5. 9.3 1. 9.2 3. 9.2 4. 9.4 5. 9.3 5. 9.3 5. 9.1 6. 9.1 7. Norway 9.0 6. 8.6 10. 8.6 11. 7.9 14. 8.8 8. 8.9 8. 8.5 12. 9.1 9. 9.0 8. Netherlands 8.9 7. 8.8 7. 8.9 6. 8.9 7. 8.7 9. 8.7 10. 9.0 7. 8.8 8. 9.0 8. Australia 8.8 8. 8.7 8. 8.7 8. 8.9 7. 8.7 9. 8.8 9. 8.6 11. 8.3 13. 8.7 11. Switzerland 8.8 8. 8.7 8. 9.0 5. 9.0 5. 9.1 7. 9.1 7. 8.5 12. 8.6 11. 8.9 10. Canada 8.7 10. 8.9 6. 8.7 8. 8.7 9. 8.5 14. 8.5 12. 9.0 7. 9.2 5. 9.2 6. Estonia 6.4 29. 6.5 26. 6.6 27. 6.6 27. 6.7 24. 6.0 31. 5.6 29. 5.7 27. 5.6 26. Slovenia 5.9 35. 6.4 27. 6.6 27. 6.7 26. 6.4 28. 6.0 31. 6.0 27. 5.5 28. ? ? Poland 5.5 41. 5.3 41. 5.0 49. 4.6 58. 3.7 61. 3.5 67. 4.0 45. 4.1 43. 4.6 39. Lithuania 4.8 50. 5.0 46. 4.9 52. 4.6 58. 4.8 46. 4.6 44. 4.8 36. 4.1 43. ? ? Hungary 4.6 54. 4.7 50. 5.1 46. 5.1 47. 5.2 41. 4.8 42. 4.9 33. 5.2 32. 5.0 33. Czech Republic 4.4 57. 4.6 53. 4.9 52. 5.2 45. 4.8 46. 4.2 51. 3.7 52. 4.3 42. 4.8 37. Latvia 4.2 61. 4.3 59. 4.5 56. 5.0 51. 4.7 49. 4.0 57. 3.7 52. 3.4 57. 2.7 71. Slovakia 4.0 66. 4.3 59. 4.5 56. 5.0 52. 4.7 49. 4.0 57. 3.7 52. 3.5 52. 3.9 47. Italy 3.9 69. 3.9 67. 4.3 63. 4.8 55. 4.9 45. 4.8 42. 5.2 31. 4.6 39. 4.6 39. Romania 3.6 76. 3.7 69. 3.8 71. 3.8 70. 3.1 84. 2.9 87. 2.6 77. 2.9 68. 3.0 61. Greece 3.4 80. 3.5 78. 3.8 71. 4.7 57. 4.4 54. 4.3 49. 4.2 44. 4.9 35. 4.9 36. Bulgaria 3.3 86. 3.6 73. 3.8 71. 3.6 72. 4.0 57. 4.1 54. 4.0 45. 3.5 52. 2.9 66. Russia 2.4 143. 2.1 154. 2.2 146. 2.1 147. 2.5 121. 2.8 90. 2.7 71. 2.1 82. 2.4 76. Source: Global Corruption Reports 1999-2011 (www.transparency.org) 2012, the scale for presenting the index was changed – a total clean country now collects 100 points, while a highly corrupt country collects 0 points. Based on the results for 2012, the European states are essentially divided into two groups (see Figure 2.5.1). On one side, there are the Eastern and Southern European countries, like Ukraine (index value of 26), Russia (28), Belarus (31), Kosovo (34), Moldova (36), Greece (36), Serbia (39), and Bulgaria (41). As a rule, the corresponding index values indicate a level of corruption in these states that is very perceptible. On the other side, there are presented the Western and Northern European countries like Denmark (index value of 90), Finland (90), Sweden (88) and Norway (85). In these countries, corruption is rated as minimal. Examining the variation of corruption within the European Union, the resent study emphasize that the states that suffered the most from the last economic crisis are the ones that have a relatively high level of corruption. These countries include Greece (index value of 36, and 94 th place) and Italy (index value of 42, 72 nd place). Corruption is seen as one of the reasons for the crisis, since the use of public finances was not sufficiently transparent, and this helped to hide the debt crisis that had been intensifying for a long time (Koch 2012). Based on the newest Corruption Perceptions Index, Estonia places 32 nd in the ranking, outpacing all the former socialist Eastern European states, not to mention the former Soviet republics (Figure 2.5.1.). Slovenia has been at more-or-less the same level with Estonia for many years. Compared to the other transition countries, Estonia represents a “corruption-related success story”. Surveys of the elites organised in many transition states, at the turn of the century, showed that corruption is a relatively smaller problem in Estonia than it in the neighbouring eastern and southern states. In 2000, 51% of the members of the Estonian elite, who were polled, considered corruption to be a very significant problem. In Latvia, the corresponding indicator was 72%; in 84 Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
Lithuania, 61%; and in Russia, 69%. In the global corruption report compiled in 2004, a clearly more positive attitude toward public authority could be seen among the Estonian elite, as compared with Lithuania, Latvia and Russia. If 39% of the Estonian elite agreed with the statement that the representatives of public authority are dealing with their personal interests, in Russia, the respective indicator was 61%, in Latvia 55% and in Lithuania 51% (Steen 2004). When we examine the changes in Estonia’s position based on the corruption perception for the last ten years, we see a somewhat different picture. Estonia’s ranking in the corruption perceptions index list has constantly deteriorated during the named period (see Table 2.5.1). Estonia’s highest position was achieved in 2006 (24 th place); then, we fell by three to four places; remained there; and declined again, during the last two years. During the last six years, Estonia’s position has worsened by eight places. Based on the corruption perceptions indicators, Estonia has not drawn closer to the Western and Northern European countries, but rather, decreased its gap with the former socialist states. A shift in the same direction is also occurring in the attitudes of the public toward the abuse of power in Estonia. The cases of political corruption, which have regularly been disclosed recently, have increased people’s concerns about political corruption and the transparency of governance. The last two GRECO reports dealt with political corruption in Estonia. In 2008, the report included several proposals for improving oversight over political party financing. As of the beginning of 2012, of the eight recommendations regarding the regulation of the criminalisation of corruption, five had not been implemented, two were partly implemented and one has been satisfactorily implemented. In its newest report, which deals with the prevention of corruption among parliament members, judges and prosecutors, GRECO made seven recommendations for improving the work of the Estonian Parliament (Riigikogu). Among other things, the report dealt with establishing rules for people who try to influence the drafting of legislation, for the establishment of codes of ethics, for subsequent job restrictions for members of parliament and for the declaration of their economic interests (GRECO 2012). 2.5.2 Summary As compared to the majority of the former Eastern bloc countries, the extent of the corruption in Estonia has been assessed as rather modest. Estonia’s anti-corruption strategy, are primarily concerned with simpler forms of corruption, the so-called “lower level” of corruption, i.e. activities which are mainly related to the honesty and transparency in business. If foreign companies, which represented the Western-style business and management culture, played a large role in the economic reorganisation, we were left, more or less, on our own, when it came to the development of the political culture. The international organisations have repeatedly indicated to the danger of political corruption, the negative impact of which on the Estonian development has become increasingly evident in recent years. An essential role has also been played by our inexperience and the lack of a consistent policymaking tradition. We are often not able to see the importance of stability and ethical values in institutional activities, compared to personal gain and interests. Self-criticism is inhibited by the wrong habit of hiding any shortcomings behind a shiny façade. References 1. 2012 Corruption Perceptions Index – www.transparency.org/ policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2012/results 2. GRECO 2012 – http://www.korruptsioon.ee/greco 3. Karklins, R. (2005). The System Made Me Do It: Corruption in Post-Communist Societies. Armonk, NY, London: M.E. Sharpe. 4. Koch, A. (2012). Corruption Perceptions Index 2012 and the European Financial Crisis. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2012/results 5. Lipset, S., Lenz, G. (1999). Corruption, Culture, and Markets. Manuscript, George Mason University, Arlington, VA. 6. Mauss, M. (2000/1924). The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. New York: W.W. Norton. 7. Nations in Transit 2012 – www.freedomhouse.org 8. Sandholtz, W., Taagepera, R. (2005). “Corruption, Culture, and Communism,” International Review of Sociology, 15, 1, 109-131. 9. Steen, A. (2004). “How Elites View Corruption and Trust in Post-Soviet States,” Global Corruption Report 2004: Special Focus: Political Corruption. London; Sterling, VA: Pluto Press / Transparency International. Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013 85
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 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: 2.5 Corruption Jüri Saar In accord
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?