Barbara A. Anderson and John H. Romani
This paper looks at the salience and the seriousness of various
social issues in Estonia in 1996. It also looks at similar issues
in Estonia in 1991 and discusses the changes between the two dates.
By 1996, Estonia was the most economically successful of any country
of the former Soviet Union. Nonetheless, it was still in the process
of a difficult economic transition. Gross domestic product declined
throughout the early 1990s and only began to increase in 1994.
In 1996, economic issues, especially as they impacted on the lives
of individuals and households, dominated the concerns of groups
in Estonia. The majority of the improvements and the areas that
had worsened in the previous decade were seen in economic terms.
All groups were aware of the positive and negative aspects of
the economic changes associated with marketization of the economy.
The possibilities for economic improvement as well as the increase
in poverty and the overall increase in economic inequality were
widely acknowledged. More goods were available in stores, and
political restrictions on travel had been removed, but whether
this resulted in more acquisition of goods or in more travel depended
on whether the individual or household had sufficient money to
buy the goods or the tickets.
The assessment of whether the personal economic situation had
improved or worsened in the previous decade differed widely among
groups. Highly educated Estonians in Tallinn saw their economic
situation as better. They also saw the reasons for why some had
not fared well as being substantially due to lack of initiative
or poor work habits. Secondary-educated Russians in Sillimae saw
their economic situation as much worse. They saw structural factors
related to lack of jobs and low wage rates as the main causes
of their worsened economic situation.
Examination of perceptions of social problems in Estonia in 1991
would not have predicted this situation. In 1991, economic concerns
were relatively minor. All groups tended to express a high degree
of satisfaction with their jobs. Political and macrosocial concerns
dominated views of social problems. Free medical care and primary
and secondary education were viewed as quite unsatisfactory, perhaps
due to a vision of higher quality without substantially higher
costs.
In 1991, in answer to questions about trade-offs in the move to
a market economy, a majority of all groups expressed a willingness
to take a better paying, but less secure, job, and almost everyone
agreed that income differences were necessary in order to stimulate
economic growth.
By 1996, some groups in Estonia had become winners in the economic transition, but members of many other groups seem to have underestimated the personal economic cost of the transition. In 1991, they may have thought it would affect only other people or that the duration of difficult times would be shorter. Since Estonia is a "success story" in the transition from state socialism to a market economy, these economic changes in other parts of the former Soviet Union are unlikely to be any less painful.
To the beginning.
To the table of contents.
There have been many changes in the former Soviet Union in the
past ten years. Marketization has increased, and much of the social
safety net has disappeared. After deterioration in the standard
of living, there has been improvement in some regions. Former
republics now are independent countries. All of these changes
present both opportunities and challenges.
Estonia has fared best among the former Soviet republics in this economic transition. In this paper, we examine the salience and seriousness of various social issues for groups in Estonia in 1996. We also compare the 1996 results with the results of a survey which took place in Estonia in 1991.
To the beginning.
To the table of contents.
After centuries of subjugation by Sweden and the Russian Empire,
Estonia gained its independence in 1920. In 1940, Estonia was
forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union (cf. Raun 1991). Estonia
became an independent country in 1991. According to the 1989 Soviet
Census, Estonia had a population of 1.6 million, 61% of whom were
ethnic Estonians. Seventy-eight percent of the non-Estonians were
ethnic Russians (cf. Anderson and Silver 1990).
Estonia has long been on the forefront of social and economic
change in its region of the world. It was the first part of the
Russian Empire to implement substantial voluntary fertility control
at the end of the nineteenth century (Coale, Anderson, and Harm
1979; Katus 1994), it had the highest educational attainment of
any Soviet republic, and it had the highest standard of living
of any Soviet republic. In the Gorbachev period, Estonia was distinguished
by rapid marketization. Since the end of the Soviet period, Estonia
has been outstanding in economic development, and in 1992 was
the first former republic to establish a true hard currency. The
Estonian kroon is tied to the German mark. The relative economic
success of Estonia is highlighted by its invitation to join the
European Union in July 1997; it was the first former Soviet republic
to receive such an invitation.
Although Estonia is the economic success story of the former Soviet Union, the move to marketization has not been totally smooth. Figure 1 shows the annual percent growth in gross domestic product in Estonia, Latvia, Russia and Ukraine, 1990-95 (World Bank 1996). All of the countries experienced a decline in GDP after 1990. The decline was especially large in Estonia, perhaps due to early vigorous pursuit of economic policies to move to a market economy. Estonia also was the first to achieve a positive growth in GDP, which occurred in 1994. This means that from 1990 through 1993, the national income of Estonia was declining. In 1995, the gross domestic product was less than 65% of what it had been in 1989. Thus, the economic improvements in Estonia by the mid 1990s were substantially a promise for the future rather than an improvement in the average economic situation of residents of Estonia.
To the beginning.
To the table of contents.
The 1996 focus group interviews in Estonia were conducted as part
of the project "Group Identity and Social Issues in Estonia,
Ukraine and Uzbekistan." This paper is based on transcripts
from all focus group interviews in Estonia. The authors are very
grateful for the hard work that made these transcripts available.
The following focus groups were conducted:
Estonian men with higher education in Tallinn
Estonian women with higher education in Tallinn
Russian men with higher education in Tallinn
Russian women with higher education in Tallinn
Estonian men without higher education in Tartu
Estonian women without higher education in Tartu
Estonian men without higher education in Tamsalu
Estonian women without higher education in Tamsalu
Russian men without higher education in Narva
Russian women without higher education in Narva
Russian men without higher education in Sillimae
Russian women without higher education in Sillimae
The focus group participants were age 30-49. The focus group interviews
concentrated on what things had gotten better in the previous
ten years for "people like you" and what things had
gotten worse in the previous ten years for "people like you."
In addition, the focus groups discussed whether there were some
social groups for which things were especially better or worse.
It is useful to say a little about the locations of the focus
group interviews. Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, contains about
one-third the population of the country. The population is about
half and half Estonian and non-Estonian. It is one of the few
locales in Estonia where both Estonians and Russians reside in
substantial numbers. Tartu is a smaller city. Tartu University
is located there, and many graduates of the university like to
remain in that area. Tamsalu is in a rural area. The vast majority
of the populations of Tartu and Tamsalu are ethnic Estonians.
Narva is a city in northeast Estonia, bordering on Russia. The
population of Narva is overwhelmingly Russian. Sillimae is also
overwhelmingly Russian. It was formerly a "closed city,"
and its residents had very little contact with the rest of Estonia.
This project needed special permission to enter Sillimae and conduct
the focus group interviews.
Appendix 1 presents those things viewed as getting better and
those things viewed as getting worse by members of each focus
group. In addition, a code appears beside each issue in four categories.
This categorization is not perfect, and some items do not fall
neatly into only one category. However, it is useful.
The first area is economic concerns. This includes economic opportunities,
such as the possibility of becoming rich, and of improving one's
standard of living. It also includes concerns with inequality,
poverty, and social stratification. These are mainly economic
concerns at the level of the individual or the household. We label
this area E for economics.
The second area is personal and cultural freedom, including freedom
of cultural expression, and concern with discrimination. Concern
with discrimination against Russians is included in this category,
as well as enthusiasm by Estonians about no longer needing to
use the Russian language. We label this area P for personal.
The third area is family concerns, including concerns with family
values, the situation of children, and the nature of interpersonal
relations. Issues such as better or worse human relations, parents
not spending enough time with their children, and decline in moral
values of youth fall in this category. We label this area F for
family.
The fourth area is macro-level concerns, including concerns with
politics, crime, international relations and pollution. Crime
can be experienced on the personal level. However, most of the
discussion of crime in the focus groups referred to hearing about
crime in other places or whether crime rates were increasing or
decreasing, based on the media. We label this area M for macro.
Table 1 shows the major areas noted as improving and the major
areas seen as worsening for each group using the four categories.
The economy is seen as an area of both improvement and worsening
for all groups. For most groups it is seen as the major area of
improvement and for every group, except Russian men in Sillimae,
it is the major area of decline. Almost all groups recognized
the improvements in the availability of goods in stores and the
potential for economic success. However, they also noted increased
economic inequality, and many groups mentioned rising unemployment
and job competition. The disappearance of a social safety net
was widely noted, although in Sillimae, it was noted that social
services for the unemployed had increased. Many focus group participants
stated that everything depended on money, if you had it you could
do more and if you did not have it you could do less than a decade
earlier. A good example was travel. Many groups said there was
much more freedom to travel, especially to foreign countries in
the West. However, the increased cost of transportation, including
within Estonia, was also mentioned. Those with little money saw
their travel opportunities as more limited than in the past.
Many groups noted increases in personal freedom and improved communication
and information. Some stated that work had become more interesting
and people generally were more enthusiastic about their own lives.
In the personal area, most of the Russian groups pointed to discrimination
against Russians as an area that had worsened. While the Estonian
groups seemed to think the main source of problems of Russians
stemmed from their lack of knowledge of Estonian language, and
to a lesser extent, their education and motivation, the Russian
focus group participants, while acknowledging that knowledge of
Estonian language was important, saw many additional, and often
unfair, barriers for Russians. The Russians in Sillimae seemed
the least concerned with outright legal or illegal discrimination.
Perhaps their historic isolation in a closed city made them less
aware of possible discrimination than Russians in Tallinn or in
Narva. For Estonian men in Tartu the major improvement was seen
as the ability to use the Estonian language in all settings, that
is that it was no longer necessary to speak Russian.
In the area of family and interpersonal relations, many said that with marketization people had become less friendly, and many were concerned with deterioration of values of the young. This tended to be a greater concern of women than of men.
Macrolevel issues were relatively unimportant. For Estonian men
in Tallinn, the political situation generally was seen as an important
problem area, and the most important problem among Russian men
in Sillimae was crime. Overall, politics generally, the environment,
and crime were seen as relatively unimportant. With the exception
of Sillimae, concern with crime seemed to be with crime in some
other place in Estonia. Also, the environment was only mentioned
as a major problem by men in Sillimae. Although it was discussed
by women in Sillimae, it was dismissed as not an extremely serious
problem, despite the high level of pollution in Sillimae. The
environment also came up in the discussion among Estonian women
in Tamsalu, in the context of new water pipes that had been put
in to improve the quality of the town's water, and in Tartu in
terms of pollution of a local river.
It is clear from Table 1 that all groups recognized the potential
advantages and disadvantages of marketization. However groups
differed in whether, on balance, they saw economic aspects improving
or worsening in the previous decade. Table 2 schematically represents
whether the various groups saw the economic situation as having
improved or worsened in the previous ten years. Table 2 is based
not only on the information in Appendix Table 1 but also on reading
the transcripts for comparative comments as to whether the standard
of living or the economic situation for "people like you"
had gotten better or worse.
Estonians with higher education in Tallinn clearly thought that
their economic situation had improved. Also, to a somewhat lesser
extent, Russians with secondary education in Narva saw their economic
situation as having improved. Educated Estonians in the capital
city would be expected to benefit first from economic growth.
The views of Russians with secondary education in Narva are more
surprising. The Narva focus groups perceived that the situation
of Russians in Tallinn was better than that of Russians in Narva,
but educated Russians in Tallinn saw their economic situation
as having worsened.
There are several possible explanations for this. It is likely the actual economic situation of educated Russians in Tallinn is better than that of less-educated Russians in Narva. However, the Russians in Narva may be implicitly comparing their situation with that of Russians in Russia to a greater extent than are Russians in Tallinn. Also educated Russians in Tallinn had the most to lose in status in the transition from the Estonian Republic to the Republic of Estonia, and also may be comparing their situation with that of educated Estonians in Tallinn. The worse situation of those in towns or rural areas is also clear from Table 2.
To the beginning.
To the table of contents.
A survey conducted in Estonia in 1991 with 1,921 respondents provides
some useful comparative background for interpretation of the 1996
focus group results. The fieldwork began in February 1991 and
ended in August 1991 before the August 19 coup.
The survey builds on an earlier longitudinal survey in Estonia.
That survey (1966-1979) was conducted only among ethnic Estonians
(Matulionis 1988; Saar 1990; Titma 1985, 1989). The respondents
in the earlier survey were in their last year of general secondary
school in Estonia in the academic year 1965-66. In the 1991 survey,
as many of the Estonian respondents from the 1979 survey as could
be located were reinterviewed.
The 1991 survey was also administered to a comparison group of
non-Estonians-mostly ethnic Russians. The non-Estonians were students
in their last year of general secondary school in Estonia in 1965,
1966, or 1967 in schools in which the main language of instruction
was Russian. Thus, the respondents to the 1991 survey were in
their early forties.(2)
Based on the 1991 survey, the problems uppermost in the minds
of people in Estonia changed quite a bit between 1991 and 1996.
The survey asked respondents to rate the seriousness of 14 different
social problems, including crime, ethnic relations, availability
of housing, the high divorce rate, and the availability of desirable
jobs.(3) Figure 2 shows the ranking of the seriousness of the fourteen
social problems from the 1991 survey divided into eight groups
by gender (Men, Wom), whether or not they had higher education
(Hi, Sec) and whether or not they were ethnic Estonians (Est,
Rus).
Each of the fourteen problem areas is also classified into the
areas M, P, E, or F. The macrolevel issues are shown in red, the
personal issues in blue, economic issues in black, and family
issues in green.
Macrolevel issues dominated social concerns in 1991. There is
a straight red horizontal line at the top of Figure 2 because
every group rated crims as the most serious problem in 1991. Seven
out of the eight groups rated pollution as the second most serious
problem. Relations with governmental leaders was also seen as
a serious problem,. For every group, relations with USSR leaders
in Moscow was rated as either the third or the fourth most serious
problem.
Personal issues asked about in 1991 in the list of potential social
problems relate to ethnic groups. The question about whether migration
into Estonia was a serious problem was clearly interpreted as
meaning migration of Russians and other non-Estonians into Estonia.
Ethnic Estonians saw this as a serious problem (ranked third or
fourth), while Russians did not see this as a problem at all.
The somewhat parallel question for Russians was whether ethnic
relations were a problem. This was more likely to have been seen
as a problem by Russians than by Estonians.
Economic issues were relatively unimportant. Housing was the second
most serious problem for Russian men with a higher education and
was the third most serious problem for the other three groups
of Russians. Uncertainty about the future was fairly important
for some groups, rating fifth for three of the groups. Availability
of jobs played a fairly minor role for members of all eight groups,
although it was perceived as a more serious problem by Russians
than by Estonians. It has been widely observed that Estonia had
a labor-short economy. However, there is a straight horizontal
black line at the bottom of Figure 2 because every group in 1991
saw a shortage of labor as the least serious social problem. The
extreme salience of economic issues apparent in 1996 was not present
in 1991.
Family and interpersonal values were not seen as a serious problem.
There was some concern about the extent of materialism, and women
were more concerned about a high divorce rate than men, but no
family issue ranked above sixth for any group.
In 1991, people were generally satisfied with important economic
aspects of their lives. Figure 3 shows the percent of members
of each of the eight groups who stated that they were satisfied
with their jobs, with their housing, with public medical care,
and with primary and secondary schools.(4) The vast majority of each
group was satisfied with their jobs, and a majority of each group
was satisfied with their housing. Thus, immediate complaints about
standard of living and work life seem to have been fairly minor.
However, there was a high level of dissatisfaction with public
medical care and with primary and secondary schools. This is interesting
in light of numerous complaints in the 1996 focus groups about
the cost of medical care and about costs for lessons for children
that used to be free. These are both areas for which it is easy
to imagine that the quality could be better, and the possibility
of a market could result in a better product. That is, if cost
were not prohibitive.
Despite the positive economic picture for 1991, there were substantial
concerns among members of some groups about unemployment. Actual
unemployment was very low in 1991, but the changes already underway
made some people very worried about the possibility of losing
their jobs. Figure 4 shows the proportion of respondents who thought
they were somewhat or very likely to lose their jobs in the next
six months. In 1991, Russians felt much more at risk of losing
their jobs than Estonians, and Russian women felt more at risk
of losing their jobs than Russian men.
The 1996 focus groups talked at length about the positive and negative aspects of marketization. Figure 5 shows the percent of each group in 1991 who agreed it was worthwhile to take various economic risks associated with marketization. People were asked whether they would work in a less secure, better paying job. They were also asked whether they agreed that there should be differences in income to stimulate economic growth.(5) It is clear from Figure 5 that all groups supported taking risks in jobs that paid well but which were not secure. Men were more willing to take these risks than women, but Russian men were just as willing as Estonian men to takes these risks. Given the greater concern about possible unemployment among Russian women than Russian men, there is reason for women to be more concerned about job security. There was also almost total agreement that differences in income were necessary to stimulate economic growth, with women less convinced of this than men. Perhaps people did not think they would be the ones with low incomes.
To the beginning.
To the table of contents.
By 1996, concerns with the economy had come to dominate people's
thinking in Estonia. This may be because the economic transition
was taking longer than had been anticipated. With the discussions
of international agencies and joining international trade groups,
the concern with the economy may have permeated all aspects of
people's lives. Perhaps people were waiting for the economy to
work itself out before other things were considered.
By 1996, some groups in Estonia had become winners in the economic
transition, but members of many other groups seem to have underestimated
the personal economic cost of the transition. In 1991, they may
have thought it would affect only other people or that the duration
of difficult times would be shorter.
Also, in 1991, environmental pollution was seen as a very serious
social problem. In 1995, only 15% of respondents in a survey in
Estonia thought the state of the environment was a cause for concern
-- 10% of Estonians and 23% of non-Estonians (Estonia 1995: 20).
In 1993, Andres Tarand, Estonia's Minister of the Environment
wrote, "...in the race between environmental requirements
and economic development, the former tends to lag behind, but
not hopelessly (Estonia 1993)."
Given the relative economic success of Estonia, two observations may be made. First is the decline of the environment as a social issue between 1991 and 1996. With time, that issue may return to the policy agenda.(6) Despite the lack of general concern about the environment, some progress was made in Estonia, as indicated by the improvement of the water system in Tamsalu. With sufficient economic growth, the economic situation even of Russians in Sillimae with secondary education may improve. Second is the salience of the experience in Estonia for other parts of the former Soviet Union. It is relatively clear that by 1996, people in Estonia had become aware of the social and personal costs associated with marketization. For many this has been more painful than was anticipated. In other parts of the former Soviet Union it is not likely to be any easier.
To the beginning.
To the table of contents.
2For some analyses of the 1991 survey results see Anderson and Romani (1996) and Anderson and
Voormann (1997).
3For each of these questions people could reply that the problem was 1-Very Serious Problem,
2-Somewhat Serious Problem, 3-Somewhat of a Problem, or 4-Not at all a Problem. The ratings of 1
through 4 were used to obtain rankings of the relative seriousness of problems for each group.
4For each of these questions people could reply they were very satisfied, somewhat satisfied,
somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied. Figure 3 shows the percent who stated that they were
either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied.
5 For each of these questions people were asked if they agreed strongly, agreed somewhat, disagreed
somewhat or disagreed strongly. Figure 5 shows the percent who agreed strongly or agreed somewhat.
6See Kingdon (1995) for a discussion of how and why issues move on and off of the policy agenda.
To the beginning.
Anderson, Barbara A., and Brian D. Silver. 1990.
"Growth and Diversity of the Population of the Soviet Union,"
Annals of the American Academy of Political Social Sciences.
510: 155-177.
Anderson, Barbara A. And John H. Romani. 1996. "Environmental
Views in Estonia on the Eve of Independence:
Perceptions of the Seriousness of Ecological Pollution
as a Social Problem," a paper presented at the Conference
on Population and the Environment in Developed Countries, Rome
October 28-29.
Anderson, Barbara A., and Rein Voormann. 1997. "Women
and Equality of the Sexes in Estonia," International Journal
of Sociology (forthcoming).
Chinn, Jeff and Robert Kaiser. 1996. Russians
as the New Minority. Boulder; Westview.
Coale, Ansley J., Barbara. A. Anderson, and Erna
Härm. 1979. Human Fertility in Russia since the Nineteenth
Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Estonia. 1993. Keskkond 1993/Estonian Environment.
Tallinn: Ministry of the Environment.
Estonia. 1995. Estonian Human Development Report.
Tallinn.
Katus, Kalev. 1994. "Fertility Transition in
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania," in Wolfgang Lutz, Sergei
Scherbov, and Andrei Volkov, Eds., Demographic Trends and Patterns
in the Soviet Union before 1991. London: Routledge: 89112.
Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives and
Public Policies. 2nd Edition. New York: Harper Collins.
Manser, Roger. 1993. Failed Transitions. New
York: The New Press.
Matulionis, A., Chief Ed. 1988. Sociological Research
of Youth's Path of Life. Vilnius: Institute of Philosophy,
Sociology, and Law, Lithuanian Academy of Sciences.
Raun, Toivo U. 1991. Estonia and the Estonians.
Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.
Saar, Ellu. 1990. Longitiudnoe sotsiologicheskoe
issledovanie (Problemy metodiki izucheniia zhiznennogo samoopredeleniia
molodezhi). Tallinn: Ilion.
Titma, M. Kh. 1985. Zhiznennyi put' pokoleniia:
Ego vybor i utverzhdenie. Tallinn: Eesti raamat.
Titma, M. Kh. 1989. Nachalo puti: Pokolenie so
srednim obrazovaniem. Moscow: Nauka.
World Bank. 1992. World Development Report 1992:
Development and the Environment. New York: Oxford University
Press.
World Bank. 1996. World Development Report 1996:
From Plan to Market. New York: Oxford University Press.
To the table of contents.
References