DEVELOPMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 2.8.2 Trust in the parliament and government, from 2000 to 2012 Government Parliament 65 65 60 60 55 55 50 50 45 45 Trust, percentage 40 35 30 40 35 30 May 2000 Oct 2000 May 2001 Oct 2001 June 2002 Oct 2002 June 2003 Oct 2003 June 2004 Oct 2004 June 2005 Oct 20 05 Sept 2006 Dec 2006 June 2007 Sept 2007 Jan 2008 Aug 2008 Jan 2009 May 2009 Jan 2010 Sept 2010 Oct 20 11 Mar 2012 Oct 2012 Source: Public Opinion and National Defence poll citizens do. In Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic, only one in nine citizens trusts the parliament. Therefore, in Estonia, trust in both the government and the parliament is the highest of all the new EU Member States. This picture can probably be explained by the existence of different political cultures, including the understanding of people living in the developed democracies that, regardless of the current difficulties that negatively impact the development of the state, the parliament and government are doing their best, and their actions are based on the interests of the people. However, in the Central and Eastern European states, thanks to extensive political alienation, distrust in political institutions predominates. Understandably, the trustworthiness of political institutions is affected not only by the acuteness of the societal problems, but also by specific political circumstances and election cycles. It is quite usual that, after general elections, the trust in the newly elected parliament, and the government formed thereby, is high. However, during the term of office, this trust starts to decrease. An example is the level of trust in the parliament and government, based on the monitoring of public opinion by the Public Opinion and National Defence Survey, between 2000 and 2012 (Figure 2.8.2). We can also see that, in addition to the election cycle, the trust ratings are also strongly impacted by the economic situation – the impact of the 2008 economic recession was revealed in the declining trust assessments. The recovery from the crisis was marked by a sharp increase in trust, which, however, turned into a steady decline, at the end of 2011. From the graph, we can see that the rise and fall of the trust in political authority is related to the election cycles, as well as to large political crises and scandals (2001 – Laar’s picture scandal; 2004 – fall of the Res Publica government; 2007 – Bronze Night, which lead to Figure 2.8.3 Trust of the Estonians and the Russian-speaking minority toward the parliament and government, from 2006 to 2012 Parliament: Parliament: Trust, percentage 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Dec 2006 June 2007 Jan 2008 Estonians Estonians Aug 2008 Jan 2009 May 2009 non-Estonians non-Estonians Jan 2010 Sept 2010 Aug 2011 Source: Public Opinion and National Defence poll Oct 2011 Mar 2012 Oct 2012 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 96 Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
Figure 2.8.4 Changes releated to trust in government, Estonia and the reference states, from 2006 to 2012 Estonia Czech Republic Slovakia Hungary Slovenia Finland Denmark Netherlands Greece Trust, percentage 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Source: Eurobarometer a loss of trust among the Russian-speaking respondents; 2009 – impact of the economic crisis; 2012 – Reform Party financing scandal). Estonia’s problem is the strong correlation between the trust assessments and the ethnic background of the respondents, which reflects the different attitudes of the Estonians and the Russian-speaking minority toward the Estonian state (Figure 2.8.3). It is also noteworthy that the Russian-speaking respondents demonstrated greater trust in the parliament than in the government, but the opposite is true of the Estonians, who trust the government more. However, when comparing the changes in the trust in Estonia’s government, with that in the reference states, we see clearly that, despite the economic crisis, some governments retain the trust of the people and some do not (Figure 2.8.4). In the old democracies, the trust in the government has been declining steadily in Greece, but, in the Baltic Sea area, which is of interest to us, Denmark has turned out to be the most vulnerable. On the other hand, the ratings of the governments in Finland and the Netherlands have turned out to be consistently high, regardless of the crisis. The trust level of Estonia’s government has remained higher than that of the other new EU Member States. Initially, the rapid recovery from the crisis raised the level of trust in the government, but in the autumn of 2011, this started to decline. It is worth observing how Slovenia and the Czech Republic, which, to date, have consistently outstripped Estonia in human and economic development, and have tried to maintain a “soft line” in their reform policies, have ended up in a serious crisis of trust, during and after the economic crisis. Simultaneously with trust in the government (Figure 2.8.5), a change has also occurred in the trust in political parties, which has been lower than the trust in the government, and which declined, in many states, to below 10%, during the crisis. After the crisis, the trust in political parties increased only in Finland and Denmark, and somewhat in Slovakia and Hungary, while, at the same time, the trust in the political systems of Slovenia and the Czech Republic were not able to recover, even by the end of 2012. In Estonia, the decline in the trustworthiness of the government, compared to 2010, has been faster and sharper than the reduction in the trustworthiness of the political parties, which, until 2011, remained higher than in the other Member States. However, it can generally be stated that, regardless of the increase in public criticism, Estonia’s political system, which is based on representative democracy, has become more stable than in the majority of the other Eastern and Central European states. However, if we compare all the other European Union Members States with the problem child, Greece, the question develops, whether trust in the government, parliament and political parties has been decimated by the economic crisis, or is the reason why Greece actually cannot cope with its problems is the existence of a great deficit in social capital, and a total lack of trust. 2.8.2 Satisfaction with the functioning of democracy Trust in political institutions is an indication of how well democracy functions in the given state. Or, in other words, to what extent people perceive that the state authorities are capable of finding solutions to problems, while also considering the interests of various societal groups, in the process. The following percentages of the citizens are satisfied with the functioning of democracy in their states: 90% in Denmark, 78% in Finland, 75% in the Netherlands, and 70% in Austria. On the other hand, 76% of Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013 97
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 and 96: states included in the EU Kids Onli
Page 97: 2.8 Public assessments of the state
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?