DEVELOPMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

of the population statistics varies from state to state. The definition of a prison also varies and the dividing line between a penal institution and a “non-prison”, between imprisonment and freedom, may be ambiguous (e.g. the “detention centres” in China or in North Korea). The alternative measures to imprisonment that are not used instead of incapacitation, but besides to imprisonment, increase the state’s control over individuals. In 2010, there were more than 10.1 million prisoners in the world’s prisons. The global ratio of prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants was 146. The prison populations vary considerably, between various regions of the world. High prison rates are characteristic of South America (an average of 175), and especially states of the Caribbean region (an average of 357). Western Europe is characterised by very low numbers of prisoners (an average of 96), while in the states on the border between Europe and Asia, the average is higher – 228 (Walmsley 2010). On the global scale, Estonia has an above average number of prisoners (254 per 100,000), and is among the countries that are the greatest implementers of imprisonment in the Western world. The states with the highest number of prisoners in the world are the United States (716), Rwanda (527), Cuba (510) and Russia (493). Liechtenstein (28), Monaco (34), Iceland (47), Andorra (49) and Japan (55) are characterised by the lowest prison rates. The Estonian crime control policy is characterised by the fact that the number of prisoners has remained at the same level, and relatively unchanged, throughout the period of independence. 2 Since Estonia’s population decreased at the same time, the number of prisoners, per 100,000 inhabitants, was higher, in the second half of the 1990s, than in the first half. We can speak about a reduction in the number of prisoners starting only in 2007, when the corresponding indicator was below 260 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. For example, the total number of prisoners, on 1 January 2008, was 3,456, of which, 2,540 were imprisoned and 916 were remand prisoners. By 2011, the number of prisoners had stabilised at 3,400. This change – a 21% decline, compared to 2006 – is related to a corresponding focused effort in this field, but the number of prisoners, compared to the other democratic states of Europe, is still very high (Walmsley 1996). Table 2.6.3 Number of prisoners and prison rate in Estonia, 1992–2012 Source: Ministry of Justice; Kuritegevus Eestis, Tavares & Thomas 2009 Finland Denmark Slovenia Switzerland Netherlands South Korea Ireland Austria Hungary New Zealand Slovakia Czech Republic Singapore Estonia Uruguay Chile 2.6.4 Taiwan International crime victims surveys and the sense of security of Latvia Estonia’s population, 1993–2011 Lithuania The organising of international crime victims surveys, Costa Rica starting in the late 1980s, was prompted by great problems in comparing crime in different states based on prisoners police statistics. Secondly, there was a need for an alternative standardised means for measuring the spread of Source: World Prison Brief 2013) Year prisoners Number of prisoners Prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants 1992 4408 281 1997 4638 316 2002 4775 350 2004 4565 338 2006 4310 320 2007 3456 258 2008 3656 257 2009 3555 272 2010 3393 253 2011 3400 254 2012** 3371 252 Figure 2.6.2 Number of prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants, in Estonia and the reference countries 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2 The number of prisoners in Estonia, during the Soviet occupation, exceeded 8,500 in the middle of the 1980s, which is more than 550 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. At that time, this did not include military or several other categories of detainees. See: Saar 1996. “Penal Policy: International Trends and Estonia,” Juridica International. Law Review. University of Tartu, pp. 62-68. 88 Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
crime. And thirdly, there was a wish to promote a victim-based way of thinking, throughout the world (Zwekic 1998). The International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS) data collections are organised in five waves in many states. If, in the beginning, the survey focused, primarily, on the developed industrial states (Western European countries, U.S., Canada, Japan, etc.), since the 1990s, the survey includes the majority of the Eastern European states, as well as several Central and South American, African and Asian states. In the last survey (ICVS-5), organised in 2004-2005, the residents in 30 states, and 33 large cities in these states, were surveyed (Van Dijk, van Kesteren, Smit 2008). People’s fear of crime, their sense of security has been one of the most important topics in international victims surveys, and a phenomenon that is systematically examined (Ditton, Farral 2000). Researchers refrain from associating the level of the sense of security with the fear of falling victim to crime and see it more as an emotion that reflects a general attitude – whether people feel safe or not. People’s sense of security also reflects the trust in the state and its institutions, and whether people believe in the ability of the state to establish order, and ensure a favourable living environment, or not. The sense of security has been studied in all the international crime victims surveys that have been organised to date, which were conducted in 1993, 1995, 2000, 2004 and 2009. The following standard question was asked to determine the respondent’s fear of crime: “How safe do you feel, walking alone, in your neighbourhood, after dark?” This standard question as tool is based on the assumption that a sense of security is more of an emotional reaction to the entire societal situation, rather than the result of a rational calculation. Secondly, it was assumed that fear is experienced most intensively when walking on the street alone, at night, when the risk of falling victim to crime is relatively high. Thirdly, the standard question is used to get a comparative indicator, both geographically, and Figure 2.6.3 Growth of the sense of security of Estonia’s population, 1993–2011. Feels safe on a dark street (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1993 2004 1995 2000 2009 2010 2011 Figure 2.6.4 The sense of security of population in Estonia and the reference countries Percentage 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Singapore Slovenia Austria Denmark Netherlands Finland Ireland New Zealand Taiwan Slovakia Czech Republic Hungary Estonia South Korea Chile Uruguay Latvia Costa Rica Lithuania Percentage 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Source: World Gallup 2012 for time series. Essentially, a similar indicator question is asked in the World Gallup survey, which allows the results to be extensively compared. Based on the victims survey data for 1993, the sense of security, among Estonia’s population, was divided, approximately, in half. 49% of the respondents felt unsafe when walking alone on the street, in the dark, and 51% felt safe (Ahven, Tabur, Aromaa 2001). Since that time, the percentage of people who feel safe has increased. By 2004, 68% of the respondents felt totally or quite safe in their neighbourhoods, in the dark, and 32% felt very uncertain (Saar et al. 2005). Based on the most recent, 2011, survey, the proportion of respondents who felt safe, had increased to 72% (Kuritegevus Eestis 2011). Therefore, since the time when the first international victims survey was conducted, the fear of crime, among the Estonian population, has significantly and constantly decreased, and the sense of security, assessed on the basis of the aforementioned indicator, has increased (see Figure 2.6.3). The percentage of positive answers to the question, “How safe do you feel, walking alone, in your neighbourhood after dark?” When comparing the indicators related to the sense of security of Estonia’s population to the other European states, we see that we are among the countries with a somewhat higher than average fear of crime. The most recent World Gallup survey, for which the results are available, places Estonia in a relatively modest position. Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013 89
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 and 86: 2.5 Corruption Jüri Saar In accord
Page 87 and 88: Lithuania, 61%; and in Russia, 69%.
Page 89: 2.6.2 Intentional homicides in Esto
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?