DEVELOPMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

of the other states, Estonian parents are comparatively passive – similarly to several Eastern European states (for example Lithuania and Slovenia), both the supervision, and the setting of restrictions by parents is below the average for Europe. The passivity of Estonian parents is probably explainable by a low awareness of the risks and a generally liberal attitude toward their (children’s) information environment. Apparently, a role is also played by the aforementioned generational difference in the intensity of Internet use, which may promote the impression that the “digital natives” do not even need the help of the older generation. 2.7.4 Summary Estonia, along with Norway, Sweden, Denmark and several new EU Member States, belongs to the group of European states, where the development of the IT infrastructure and the intensity of children’s Internet use has outstripped the development of and policies to promote safe online behaviour. If, in the Scandinavian countries, the reason seems to be hidden in the states’ liberal information environment, which apparently also reflects the domestic childrearing values and practices, in Estonia, and in the countries with cultures closer to ours in Eastern Europe (primarily Lithuania and the Czech Republic), other possible factors are the generational gap in Internet use and the low risk awareness of the parents. At a more general level, we can interpret the situation in Estonia and the other transition states as being a conflict between the super fast development of technology and the media environment, and the ability of people to adapt and learn. The tensions and risks resulting from the different tempos of eco-technological and social transformation can be alleviated by political measures. It would be worthwhile for Estonia to observe the developments in Great Britain and Finland, as possible models, where, despite a high intensity of Internet use, and the existence of a liberal information environment, fewer children experience online risks than is the European average, or is lower than in the other Nordic countries, respectively. In the case of both states, a role is probably played by long-term and extensive publicity concerning this issue, and the importance of media education in school curricula. This sub-chapter was completed with the support of the Estonian Research Council project ETF8527 and the European Commission’s Safer Internet Plus project SIP-KEP-321803. Figure 2.7.4 Parents of 9- to 16-year old children in Europe (%), who are concerned about the online risks related to their children (as a reference, the percentage of parents who are not worried about any problems) None Inappropriate online content Having contact with strangers Percentage Portugal Spain Cyprus Turkey Greece France Ireland Great Britain Italy Belgium Bulgaria Norway Finland Denmark Sweden Slovenia Poland Germany Netherlands Romania Estonia Austria Czech Republic Hungary Lithuania Average Percentage 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Source: EU Kids Online 2010 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 References 1. Dürager, A., Livingstone, S. (2012). How Can Parents Support Children’s Internet Safety? London: LSE, EU Kids Online. http:// www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20 Kids%20III/Reports/ParentalMediation.pdf 2. EU Kids Online 2010. – http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/ research/EUKidsOnline/Home.aspx. 3. Flash Eurobarometer 248 (2008). http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/eurobarometer/analyticalreport_2008.pdf. 4. Kalmus, V., Karu, K., Komp, L., Runnel, P., Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, P., Siibak, A., Ugur, K. (2011). Riskid ja turvalisus internetis: Euroopa laste vaatenurk. Peamiste tulemuste eestikeelne kokkuvõte. Tartu: University of Tartu, Institute of Journalism and Communication. http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/ research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20II%20%282009-11%29/ EUKidsExecSummary/EstoniaExecSum.pdf 5. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., Ólafsson, K. (2011). EU Kids Online Final Report. London: LSE, EU Kids Online. http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/ EU%20Kids%20II%20%282009-11%29/EUKidsOnlineIIReports/ Final%20report.pdf 6. Lobe, B., Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., Vodeb, H. (2011). Cross-National Comparison of Risks and Safety on the Internet: Initial Analysis from the EU Kids Online Survey of European Children. London: LSE, EU Kids Online. http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/ research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20II%20%282009-11%29/ EUKidsOnlineIIReports/D6%20Cross-national.pdf 7. Reporters Without Borders 2009 - http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index—ZO09,1001.html 8. Special Eurobarometer 250 (2005) http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/eurobarometer/eurobarometer_2005_25_ms.pdf. 94 Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
2.8 Public assessments of the state’s development and trust in government institutions Juhan Kivirähk, Marju Lauristin The basis of representative democracy is trust. Ordinary citizens do not have to, or even wish to, deal with problems related to the functioning of the state on an everyday basis – they delegate the representation of their interests to representative political bodies. Although the activities of states’ governments are assessed on the basis of various indicators (including democracy indices), one of the main components of good governance is the existence of a bond of trust with the citizens. Of course, trust can also exist without the involvement of the citizens and without providing them with the opportunity to participate – this depends on the political culture of the specific country, the citizenry’s levels of education, organisation and readiness to participate in the development of the society. Today, the majority of democratic societies have reached a stage of development where information technology provides the citizens with the opportunity to stay updated on what’s going on in the country and to express their opinions. The society members’ levels of information and awareness have grown significantly; and the need and wish to participate in the state’s development has increased. If governments do not make a sufficient effort to involve the citizenry in policymaking, and do not take their opinions into consideration, this can lead to a protest mentality, and a declining of trust in state authority. Of course, the situation is exacerbated by the fact that people’s socio-economic wellbeing worsens when uncertainty deepens about whether the bodies of power can cope with their assignments. If, in this situation, the bodies of power have an understanding of democracy that is limited to obtaining an authorisation of power, and feedback (reporting to, and communications with, the electorate) is reduced to only regular elections, political trust will start to erode. 2.8.1 Trust in state governance in Estonia and other European states The trust in state institutions among the citizens of the European Union Member States is regularly examined by the Eurobarometer. The level of satisfaction with the state’s general developmental trends is low in almost all of the EU states (slightly positive assessments can be found only Austria and Denmark); however, in Finland, the Netherlands, Austria and Denmark, trust in the state’s leading political institutions is significantly higher than in the other states under observation. It is noteworthy that the institutions that are closer to the citizenry, with which a personal contact exists (local bodies of power), are trusted more in all the states. Figure 2.8.1 Trust in institutions, autumn 2012 Government Parliament Local government Percentage Finland Austria Netherlands Denmark Estonia Slovakia Hungary Lithuania Ireland Latvia Slovenia Czech Rep. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percentage 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Source: Eurobarometer 78 When comparing the old and new democracies (Figure 2.8.1.), we notice different patterns of trust, as well as various levels of trust. In the Nordic countries, with their strong democratic traditions, as well as in Austria and the Netherlands, trust in the parliament is higher than in the government, and there is no sharp difference between the trust in power at the national and local levels. At the same time, in Estonia, as in the other post-Communist countries, as a rule, trust in the local governments is much greater than in the institutions at the national level, whereas, there is more trust in the govern ment than in the parliament. If, in Finland and Denmark, over 60% of the respondents trust the parliament, in Estonia, only a third of the Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013 95
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 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: states included in the EU Kids Onli
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?