The welfare system in Estonia

Ainsaar, Mare; Roots, Ave; Trumm, Avo

doi:10.4324/9780429290510-9

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current social policy in Estonia is a product of combination of prevailing rightwing governments, Soviet and Nordic welfare traditions, and EU normative guidelines (Ainsaar et al 2019). Social security rights are based mostly on recorded residency in Estonia with some additional entitlement rights for immigrants from other EU countries or countries covered by bilateral agreements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The political and economic changes were accompanied by the emergence of previously non-existent phenomenon such as unemployment, personal contributions to insurance schemes, and privatisation of the health care system. The current social protection system in Estonia still keeps many characteristics of state and employer responsibility having roots in the Soviet system (Ainsaar et al 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Social tax contributions are used to (co)finance all social policy domains except the minimum income schemes. Also, the state budget contributions are essential in financing social protection (Ainsaar et al 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Estonia

Ainsaar

Roots

2020

IMISCOE Research Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter analyses the social protection system in Estonia mainly from the immigration viewpoint. Perhaps because of low immigration rates in recent decades, immigration and emigration issues are seldom explicitly regulated in the Estonian legal system. Our findings indicate that social security rights are based mostly on legal resident status in Estonia, although EU foreign residents sometimes benefit from some better conditions, mainly in terms of taking into account employment records in other EU countries. Missing waiting periods for entitlement to social benefits guarantee that newly arrived immigrants have similar rights with long-term residents.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Estonia

Ainsaar

Roots

2020

IMISCOE Research Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So, in terms of casing strategy these six countries can be named as EWRs evolving transformations across different public policy areas. Handpicking of six countries out of 11 relies on the assumption that the Anglo-Saxon welfare system characteristics are more evident in the Baltic countries (Aidukaite, 2019; Aidukaite et al ., 2020; Ainsaar et al , 2020; Rajevska and Rajevska, 2020) and Slovenia, while in Bulgaria and Croatia certain outcomes reflect the Bismarckian principles of social security (Hrast and Rakar, 2020; Stoilova and Krasteva, 2020; Dobrotić, 2020). This brings important variety into our analysis logic.…”

Section: Methodology Indicators and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Locating Central and Eastern European emerging welfare regimes: is the youth welfare citizenship typology useful?

Broka

Toots

2021

IJSSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The authors’ aim is to establish the variance of youth welfare citizenship regimes in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and to revisit the applicability of the regime approach to the emerging welfare regimes (EWRs). Design/methodology/approach The empirical analysis follows the descriptive case study strategy aiming to discover diversity of youth welfare citizenship patterns. The case selection is made within the CEE country group, which includes countries in Central Europe, the Baltics, Eastern Europe and Southeast Europe, all sharing the communist past. The subdivision of these countries in reference to the welfare states can be made via the European Union (EU) membership based on the assumption that EU social policy frameworks and recommendations have an important effect on domestic policies. We included countries which are in the EU, i.e., with a similar political and economic transition path. There were three waves of accession to the EU in CEE countries. In the first wave (2004), all the Baltic countries, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Slovenia joined. In the second wave (2007), Romania and Bulgaria joined. Finally, Croatia joined the EU in 2013. Altogether 11 CEE countries are the EU members today, the remaining CEE countries are non-EU members and thus are excluded from the current research. Those countries which are part of the EU share similarities in social and economic reforms during the pre-accession period and after in order to reach a comparatively similar system with other member states. So, in terms of casing strategy these six countries can be named as emerging welfare regimes (EWRs) evolving transformations across different public policy areas. Handpicking of six countries out of 11 relies on the assumption that the Anglo-Saxon welfare system characteristics are more evident in the Baltic countries (Aidukaite, 2019; Aidukaite et al., 2020; Ainsaar et al., 2020; Rajevska and Rajevska, 2020) and Slovenia, while in Bulgaria and Croatia certain outcomes reflect the Bismarckian principles of social security (Hrast and Rakar, 2020; Stoilova and Krasteva, 2020; Dobrotić, 2020). This brings important variety into our analysis logic. Last but not least, we juxtapose six CEE EWR countries under analysis with six mature welfare regime countries representing different welfare regime types. Those mature welfare regime countries (Finland, Sweden, France, Germany, Italy, UK) are not an explicit object of the study but help to put analysed CEE EWR cases into larger context and thus, reflect upon theoretical claims of the welfare regime literature. Findings The authors can confirm that the EWR countries can be rather well explained by the welfare citizenship typology and complement the existing knowledge on youth welfare regime typology clusters in the Western Europe. Estonia is clustered close to the Nordic countries, whereas Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia and Slovenia are close to the Bismarckian welfare model despite rather flexible, non-restricted educational path, universal child and student support. Bulgaria is an outlier; however, it is clustered together with mature Mediterranean welfare regimes. Former intact welfare regime clusters are becoming more diverse. The authors’ findings confirm that there is no any intact cluster of the “post-communist” welfare regime and Eastern European countries are today “on move”. Research limitations/implications Altogether 11 CEE countries are the EU members today. The remaining CEE countries are non-EU members and thus are excluded from the current research. Those countries which are part of the EU share similarities in social and economic reforms during the pre-accession period and after in order to reach a comparatively similar system with other member states. At least one CEE country was chosen based on existing theoretical knowledge on the welfare regime typology (Anglo Saxon, Beveridgean, Bismarckian) for the Post-communist country groups. Practical implications In the social citizenship dimension we dropped social assistance schemes and tax-relief indices and included poverty risk and housing measures. Youth poverty together with housing showed rather clear distinction between familialized and individualised countries and thus, made the typology stronger. In the economic dimension the preliminary picture was much fuzzier, mainly due to the comprehensive education in the region and intervention of the EU in domestic ALMPs (and VET) reforms. The authors added a new indicator (pro-youth orientation of ALMP) in order better to capture youth-sensitivity of policy. Social implications The authors included a working poverty measure (in-work poverty rate) in order to reflect labour market insecurity as an increasing concern. Yet, the analysis results were still mixed and new indicators did not help locating the regime types. Originality/value In order to improve the validity of the youth welfare citizenship regime economic dimension, Chevalier's (2020) model may also be worth revisiting. The authors argue that this dichotomy is not sufficient, because inclusive type can have orientation towards general skills or occupational skills (i.e. monitored or enabling citizenship clusters), which is currently ignored. Chevalier (2020) furthermore associates inclusive economic citizenship with “coordinated market economies” (referring to Hall and Soskice, 2001), which seems hardly hold validity in the Nordic and at least some CEE countries.

show abstract

“…Although the mixed-mode design did not result in significant cost reductions. Overall, the results of the Estonian experiment showed promise for such a sequential design, and the fact that the one-hour ESS questionnaire was not a problem to complete online was a particularly positive result (Ainsaar et al, 2013;Villar & Fitzgerald, 2017).…”

Section: Sequential Mixed-mode Surveysmentioning

confidence: 94%

The role of mixed-mode surveys in political surveying and election studies

Ádám

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The welfare system in Estonia

Cited by 4 publications

References 1 publication

Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Estonia

Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Estonia

Locating Central and Eastern European emerging welfare regimes: is the youth welfare citizenship typology useful?

The role of mixed-mode surveys in political surveying and election studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About