Integration of Second Generation Russians in
Estonia
Country report on TIES survey in Estonia
December 2008
Institute of International and Social Studies, Tallinn University
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3
1.1 ORGANIZATIONAL AND METHODOLOGICAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 4
1.2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 5
2. DEMOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 8
2.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 8
2.2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF TALLINN AND KOHTLA-JÄRVE/JÕHVI .............................................. 12
2.3 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TIES PROJECT RESPONDENTS.................................................... 14
2.4 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 20
3. INTEGRATION POLICIES IN ESTONIA ................................................................... 22
3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 22
3. 2 SHORT OUTLINE OF THE “ESTONIAN INTEGRATION STRATEGY 2008-2013” ............................................... 23
3.3 INTEGRATION POLICIES IN TALLINN AND KOHTLA-JÄRVE .......................................................................... 27
4. EDUCATION ..................................................................................................................... 29
4.1 EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IN ESTONIA ............................................................................................................. 29
4.2 ENROLMENT IN PRE-SCHOOLS ..................................................................................................................... 31
4.3 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF TIES RESPONDENTS ................................................................................. 31
4.4 EXPERIENCES AT BASIC SCHOOL .................................................................................................................. 33
4.5 SECONDARY SCHOOL ................................................................................................................................... 35
4.6 HIGHER EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................... 36
4.7 THE ROLE OF FAMILY SUPPORT .................................................................................................................... 38
4.8 PERCEIVED AND EXPERIENCED EQUAL TREATMENT ................................................................................... 41
4.9 REFORM IN RUSSIAN SCHOOLS ..................................................................................................................... 42
4.10 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 43
5. LABOUR MARKET ........................................................................................................... 45
5.1 LABOUR MARKETS IN TALLINN AND KOHTLA-JÄRVE ................................................................................... 45
5.2 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF TIES RESPONDENTS ............................................................................ 46
5.3 TRANSITION FROM SCHOOL TO WORK.......................................................................................................... 47
5.4 OCCUPATIONAL STATUS IN THE FIRST AND CURRENT JOB ............................................................................ 48
5.5 STABILITY OF JOB AND CAREER OPPORTUNITIES .......................................................................................... 50
5.6 SATISFACTION WITH THE WORKING CAREER ................................................................................................ 52
5.7 ETHNIC SEGREGATION AT THE WORKPLACE ................................................................................................ 54
5.8 DISCRIMINATION EXPERIENCE AND PERCEIVED EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITIES .......................................... 55
5.9 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 56
6. CULTURAL INTEGRATION AND ADAPTATION ................................................... 58
6.1 LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY ............................................................................................................................ 58
6.2 CULTURAL THREAT AND CULTURAL ADAPTATION ...................................................................................... 71
6.3 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 82
7.1 INTERETHNIC RELATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 84
7.2 DISCRIMINATION ......................................................................................................................................... 90
7.3 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 92
1
8. SOCIAL RELATIONS....................................................................................................... 94
8.1 FRIENDSHIPS................................................................................................................................................ 94
8.2 PARTNER CHOICE ........................................................................................................................................ 98
8.3 NEIGHBORHOOD ......................................................................................................................................... 99
8.4 PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................................................... 101
8.5 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 104
9. COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES OF RUSSIAN AND ESTONIAN YOUTH .............. 107
9.1 LOCAL IDENTITY ....................................................................................................................................... 109
9.2 EUROPEAN IDENTITY ................................................................................................................................ 111
9.3 CIVIC IDENTITY AND CITIZENSHIP ............................................................................................................ 113
9.4 RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND RELIGIOSITY .................................................................................................... 120
9.5 ETHNIC IDENTITY ..................................................................................................................................... 126
9.6 CONCLUSION: COMPARING THE IDENTITY STRUCTURE OF RUSSIAN AND ESTONIAN YOUTH .................... 131
2
1. Introduction
Written and prepared by Gerli Nimmerfeldt 1
Today approximately one-third of the Estonian population is of non-Estonian origin. More
than 100 different nationalities and ethnic groups are represented; the biggest ethnic minority
group is Russians (26% of the total population). The population situation today is the legacy
of Soviet times and the result of migration flows to Estonia which started after the WWII in
the wake of economic reconstruction and industrialization as a result of state-sponsored
policies of Soviet Union. They are not “immigrants” in the traditional sense as they became
immigrants as a result of border changes and restoration of interwar statehood. Whether they
migrated willingly or they were deputed by the Soviet state-run labor program, at the time of
their migration, they believed that they were merely moving to another part of the Soviet
Union. Russians who settled in Estonia during that time considered themselves as a majority
nation of the Soviet Union. With the re-establishment of Estonian independence in 1991, the
profound change in the status of Russians occurred: from local representatives of an imperial
ethnic group, to one of a minority in a small nation-state (see Pettai & Hallik, 2002).
Another legacy of Soviet rule was that Estonians and Russians tended to live in mutual
isolation and in the beginning of 1990’s the society was separated by ethnic lines into two
culturally, linguistically and socially separated communities (see Vetik 2002).
During the transformation period Russians have faced a decline in economic well being,
citizenship problems, job instability and insecurity resulted in greater disappointment and
uncertainty compared to the Estonians (Vöörmann & Helemäe, 2003; Pavelson & Luuk,
2002). The issue of their rights, legal status and position in society and life perspectives in
Estonia became one of the central points in domestic and international debate during the
period after the restoration of an independent nation-state, constituting an area of tension and
political battles (Lauristin & Heidmets 2002) and is still a burning debate in society today. In
this context, research of integration of Russians in Estonia has been and still is of utmost
importance.
1
Gerli Nimmerfeldt is a researcher at Institute of International and Social Studies, Tallinn University.
[email protected]
3
A new generation of Russians has grown up during the last two decades who have no personal
migration experiences, who are born in Estonia and who have grown up in Estonian Republic
and have no or only vague first-hand memories of Soviet times. The project aimed to
investigate the integration of this second generation (i.e. Russian youth who have been borne
in Estonia but whose parents (at least one of them) have immigrated to Estonia) in different
domains in society, including education, labor market, social relations, cultural adaptation and
identity formation in comparison with ethnic Estonian youth with both parents born in
country at the same age (18-35 yr). Estonians are more than simply a control group in this
project. Because integration is defined as a two way-process between immigrants and the
receiving society, studying the majority group, their attitudes and perceptions is equally
important for understanding the patterns of immigrant integration.
1.1 Organizational and methodological background
The research project in Estonia relates to international research project “The Integration of the
European Second Generation” (TIES) coordinated by the Institute for Migration and Ethnic
Studies (IMES), University of Amsterdam. The TIES project is based on an international
standardized survey of second generation immigrants from Turkey, Ex-Yugoslavia, and
Morocco in eight European countries (France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Austria, The
Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden) (see more about the TIES: http://www.tiesproject.eu/).
TIES project started in 2005 and in the beginning of 2006 Institute of International and Social
Studies (IISS) at Tallinn University became an associated member of the TIES. The survey
design used for this project followed to the greatest extent possible the concepts, definitions,
indicators, and questionnaire modules of the TIES project. In 2006 (January-September), a
team comprising six researchers from different departments at IISS 2 was working on the
adaptation of the TIES survey instrument to the Estonian situation and to the new target
group. The survey questionnaire for Russian youth was translated into the Russian language
in September-October and a pilot study was conducted in October-November 2006.
IISS participated also in developing of the common questionnaire of the TIES group in the
period January-August 2006 and members of the research team have participated to
conferences coordinated by the TIES project and have benefited from both the knowledge of
the methodological challenges that the TIES partners have faced in the field, as well as the
solutions that have been implemented.
Financing for participation in the development of a common questionnaire and its adaptation
to Russian youth from January-August 2006 was provided by the Chancellery of the Republic
of Estonia. The survey implementation in Estonia was financed by a grant from Tallinn
University Research Council. As the field-work turned out to be much more time- and
resource consuming then some extra-funding for finishing the survey was supplied by City
Government of Tallinn and the Chancellery of the Republic of Estonia. Cleaning and
processing the database and the analysis carried out for writing up the country report is
financed by the Estonian Science Foundation Grant No. 7720 „Integration of Second
Generation Russians in Estonia” (grant holder Prof Raivo Vetik).
2
Rein Vöörmann, Jelena Helemäe and Ellu Saar from the Department of Social Stratification; Leeni Hansson
from the Deparment of Family Sociology; Raivo Vetik and Gerli Nimmerfeldt from the Department of EthnoSociology and Politics.
4
The fieldwork was started in January 2007 and finished in March 2008 (altogether almost 14
months, but the fieldwork was withheld for a couple of months after the Bronze Soldier Riots
in the end of April). The fieldwork was implemented by the survey bureau OÜ Faktum &
Ariko in close consultation and cooperation with the research team at IISS.
The method used for survey data collection was face-to-face interviews at the respondents’
homes. Interviews were held in respondents’ mother tongue. Altogether 43 interviewers, both
Estonians and Russians, were specially trained on project’s aims and methods to conduct the
interviews. In total, 1000 interviews (488 with Estonian youth and 512 with Russian youth)
were conducted in Tallinn and in two cities in Ida-Virumaa. Third city (Jõhvi) was included
because of the difficulties to find Estonian respondents from eligible age group in KohtlaJärve.
Table 1.1 Description of sample
Tallinn
Estonians
Russians
Target
number
respondents
Interviewed
respondents
of
Kohtla-Järve
Estonians
Russians
Jõhvi
Estonians
250
250
250
250
-
257
207
176
305
55
The data was entered by OÜ Faktum & Ariko in April 2008 with data processing program
QPS. The logistic control of data was executed with SPSS. Two data bases in SPSS format,
one for the Estonian sample and another for the Russian sample was hand over to IISS in the
end of April. The data bases were cleaned, synchronized and merged into one data set and the
conjoint database was translated into English in May - July 2008.
1.2 Theoretical background
The central concept of the study is integration, understood as the process by which minorities
are incorporated into both the structures and the society of receiving state. The integration
process involves the interaction between individual members of the immigrant group and the
ethnic majority group, as well as between those groups and the institutions and policies of the
receiving state.
Previous research has highlighted the fact that the integration process has different and
interrelated dimensions. Gordon (1964) made distinctions between three dimensions:
acculturation, structural and identificational assimilation and others have more or less
followed this general typology (Isajiw 1999). Often a forth analytical dimension is added
called social integration which refers to the formation of relationships and networks by
individuals (Heckman and Schnapper 2003).
Structural integration involves the acquisition of rights and equal access to the major
institutions of society by all groups, such as education, the housing market, the labour market,
the political system, and social services. Participation within these structures determines an
individual’s socioeconomic status and the opportunities and resources available to them for
social mobility.
5
Cultural integration is defined as the process by which the behavior and attitudes of
individuals change as they develop competence in and understanding of the language, culture,
and social mores of the dominant group in the receiving society. Cultural integration has been
primary focus of acculturation studies. Acculturation is the dual process of cultural and
psychological adaptations that take place as a result of living in a multiethnic society and as a
result of mutual accommodation between groups (Berry 2005). Cultural changes include
alterations in cultural practices and customs, while psychological changes include alterations
in individuals’ attitudes toward the acculturation process and their cultural identities (Phinney
2003).
Social integration is defined as the degree to which members of different groups are
segregated and the degree to which they intermix. Social integration involves both the
frequency and strength of contact between different societal groups and is measured in terms
of participation in networks that span intergroup divides (Jandt 1998). Indicators of social
integration of immigrants include their social networks, friendships, partnerships, marriage
and membership in voluntary organizations (Bosswick and Heckmann 2006:10).
Identificational integration is in most cases defined as the feeling of belonging to, and
identification with, groups on ethnic, regional, local and/or national levels and with the state
(Bosswick and Heckmann 2006:10). The relationship between these two aspects of identity is
still unclear and empirical evidence is both scarce and mixed in its conclusions (Phinney
1990:508). Following typology of four possible identification patterns will be used to analyze
identity construction and reactive identity mechanisms operating in it: 1) immigrants feel an
equal sense of belonging both to their country of origin and their own ethnic group, as well to
the host state and the dominant majority group (hyphenated identity); 2) more stronger sense
of belonging to and identification with the country of origin or one’s own ethnic group
parallel with lack of attachment and sense of belonging to host society and state; 3) more
stronger feelings of belonging to the host society and state parallel to more or less distancing
oneself from the kin state and one’s own ethnic group and 4) forth option is a lack of
identification to and/or weak or no sense of belonging on either dimensions.
The survey questionnaire used for data collection covers a whole spectrum of issues central
for the assessment of the prospects for integration on four above mentioned analytical
dimensions: structural, cultural, social and identificational and the relationship between them.
The substantive modules of the questionnaire are: ethnic, cultural, civic, religious and
territorial identity; education; labor market and income; housing and neighborhood; social
relations; transnationalism; language proficiency; partner choice; and parents. In addition to
the 10 modules of questions asked by the interviewer there was a written part of questionnaire
which the respondent filled in during the interview. This part comprises sensitive questions on
self-evaluation and identity.
This report is the country report on TIES survey in Estonia which contains the first findings
on all the main domains of integration in society. Second chapter will give an overview of
demographical situation in Estonia and in areas under study. Third chapter is about integration
policy developments in Estonia. Following two chapters (4 and 5) cover the structural
dimension of integration by looking on integration of Russian youth in education system and
labor market. Next three chapters (6-8) focus on different aspects of social relations between
Estonian and Russian youth and acculturation processes of second generation Russians. The
last chapter analyzes the role and relevance of territorial, civic, cultural, ethnic and religious
identity categories in identity structure of Estonian and Russian youth.
6
References
Berry, J. W. 2005. Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures, International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 503. Elsevier Ltd.
Bosswick, W., and Heckmann, F. 2006. Integration of migrants: Contribution on local and
regional authorities, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions
Gordon, M. M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. The Role of Race, Religion, and
National Origins, NY: Oxford University Press.
Heckmann, F. and Schnapper, D. 2003. The Integration of Immigrants in European Societies,
Stuttgart: Lucius and Lucius.
Isijaw, W. 1999. Understanding Diversity: Ethnicity and Race in the Canadian Context.
Toronto: Thornpson Educational PubIishing Inc.
Jandt, F. E. 1998. Intercultural Communication: An Introduction, Thousand Oaks, California;
London: Sage
Lauristin M., and Heidmets, M. 2002. Introduction: The Russian Minority in Estonia as a
Theoretical and Politcal Issue. In The Challenge of the Russian Minority, eds. M., Lauristin,
and M., Heidmets. Tartu University Press, 89-116.
Pavelson, M. and Luuk, M., 2002. Non-Estonians on the Labour Market: A Change in the
Economic Model and Differences in Social Capital. In The Challenge of the Russian
Minority, eds. M., Lauristin, and M., Heidmets. Tartu University Press, 89-116.
Pettai, V., and Hallik, K. 2002. Understanding process of ethnic ‘control’: segmentation,
dependency and co-optation in post-communist Estonia. Nations and Nationalism, Vol.8 Part
4 Oct. 2002: 505-529.
Phinney, J. 1990. Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: A review of research,
Psychological Bulletin, 108: 499-514.
Phinney, J. 2003. Ethnic identity and acculturation. In Acculturation: Advances in theory,
measurement, and applied research, eds. K. Chun, P. Organista, G. Marin, Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association, 63-81
Vetik, R. 2002. Multicultural Democracy as a New Model of National Integration in Estonia.
In The Challenge of the Russian Minority, eds. M., Lauristin, and M., Heidmets, Tartu
University Press, 55-64.
Vöörmann, R., Helemäe, J. 2003. Ethnic Relations in Estonia's Post-Soviet Business
Community. Ethnicities, 3(4): 509-530
7
2. Demography
Written and prepared by Nastja Sokolova 3
The aim of this chapter is to give an overview of the general demographic situation of
Estonians and Russians, using the data from the Population and Housing Census of 2000, as
well as more recent statistcs where they are available. An overview of immigration and its
particularities in the Estonian case is discussed first in order to explain the emergence of
Russian minority in Estonia after WWII. A detailed description of the demographic situaiton
in Tallinn and Kohtla-Järve follows. The second part analyses the data from the TIES project
and focuses on the following points: the age gender and ethnicity of respondents, their
citizenship, mobility in their mid-teens, household position, family status and parents'
background.
2.1 Historical background
During the first independence period (1920-1940) Estonia was primarily an ethnically
homogenous country. Estonians constituted about 90% of population. Among other ethnic
groups the country was home to Russians, Baltic Germans, and Swedes. Right before the end
of the World War II the percentage of natives reached almost 100% (see Figure 2.1), however
this situation changed during the Soviet period. (Kulu 2001:2). Soviet repressions, war losses
and deportations reduced the Estonian population by one-fifth (Hallik 14). People of other
nationalities started arriving in Estonia in large numbers right after the occupation of Estonia
by Soviet forces in 1944. Immigration is the primary reason why the population of the country
grew from 854 000 in 1945 to almost twice that number in 1989 (1 565 662) (Kulu 2001).
3
Nastja Sokolova is a MA student at Tallinn University.
8
Figure 2.1 Ethnic distribution 1944-2000.
Ethnic distribution
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Estonians
Russians
Others
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1944
1989
2000
Sources: for the year 1944, Kulu 1998, for 1989 and 2000, population and housing census of 2000
The share of foreign-born inhabitants in the Baltic States is higher than in any other European
countries (Kulu 1998:3). It had to do in part with the better economic situation in these states
when compared to the rest of the Soviet Union; however it was mostly due to Soviet policies,
which aimed at changing the ethnic distribution of Estonia by making it less monocultural and
thus less prone to any type of instability for the Soviet regime (Hallik 1998:14). In the long
term, massive inflows of non-native workers would have easily made Estonians a minority in
their own country.
Up until the 1960's the migration flows were organized from Moscow and the main goal was
to reinforce Soviet interests by taking control over strategic industries and administration. In
order to establish new cities (Kohtla-Järve) or further develop existing ones (Sillamäe), Soviet
authorities used both convicts' and young people's labour (Kirch 1997). Later, the migration
became less centralized and more voluntary. Potential workers were lured to Estonia by
specific enterprises. The motivations for coming to Estonia were connected with personal
reasons, such getting married or hoping to improve one's standard of living (Kulu 1998, Kirch
1997).
The geographical component of immigration patterns is also worth mentioning. Up until the
end of the 1960's the main immigration flows originated from the north-western and central
European parts of Russia, including the Soviet republics of Ukraine, ByelorussiaLatvia and
Lithuania. Starting from the 1970's, the share of immigrants from further regions, such as
Volga region in Russia, the Northern Caucusus and Central Asia republics increased. Despite
the cultural diversity of immigrants, the overwhelming share of incomers consisted of ethnic
Russians (Kulu 2001, Sakkeus 1999).
The majority of workers that came from the Soviet Union are concentrated primarily in
northern Estonia (see Figure 2.2). This was due to the need to restore towns that were
destroyed during WWII and to rebuild the shattered economy in this region. Soviet leaders
also distrusted the native population to work in strategic industries, such as mining and energy
sectors. Along with the labourers, numerous bureaucrats and high-ranking officials were sent
9
to Estonia to oversee the implementation of Soviet policies both in the state administration
and state enterprises (Kulu 1998:3). Most of them settled in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia
(Harju County). As a result of these policies, between 1940 and 1991, the population of
northwestern Estonia with the center in Tallinn grew 3,2 times, while the northeast (Ida-Viru
county) grew almost 5 times. The overall population increased 3,1 times (Marksoo 2005:65).
Figure 2.2 Share of Estonians in population, 1 January 2008.
Source: Estonian Statistical Office
The census of 1989 puts the percentage of non-Estonians at 38%. About 3/5 of non-natives
were born outside Estonia, making the other two-fifths second and third generation
immigrants (Kulu 1998:3). As of 1989, the overwhelming majority (79%) of newcomers were
ethnically Russian. Among others, Ukrainian (8%) and Byelorussian (5%) ethnicities were
also present (Hallik refering to the Estonian human development report 1995). After regaining
independence a substantial number of minorities left Estonia, thus contributing to the increase
of the natives' share of the population (from 61,5% in 1989 to 67,9% in 2000, see Figure 2.1,
page 8).
The census of 2000 recorded some changes in minorities' demographic characteristics. The
share of non-Estonians dropped to 25,6% of the population 4. Out of all Russians living in
4 Population and Housing Census 2000. Citizenship, Nationality, Mother Tongue and Command of Foreign
Languages. Statistical Office of Estonia. 2001
10
Estonia, a little more than half were born here 5. The percentage of people born outside
Estonia is higher for older generations (35-74 years in 2000, nowadays it would be 43-82
years) 6. Almost half of the locally born non-natives 7, have parents that were born outside
Estonia, and in more than two-thirds of the cases at least one parent was from another
country.
In case of Estonia, the collapse of the Soviet Union meant the restoration of independence.
Together with Latvia, Estonia is the only former Soviet Republic that decided against zerooption, when deliberating on citizenship law. This resulted in proportionally substantial
number of people with undetermined citizenship (or non-citizens) in both countries. Mostly
those are non-natives, who came to Estonia during the Soviet period and did not manage to
acquire Estonian citizenship by naturalization after the country regained independence. As of
April 2008, 83,8% of the population hold Estonian citizenship 8 (almost 4% increase from
2000). Non-citizens consitute about 8% of the population. Citizens of other countries (mostly
of the Russian Federation) constitute about the same 8% 9.
According to the census of 2000, the breakdown within the Russian ethnic group produces the
following statistics. About 40% of Russians are Estonian citizens, 38% are non-citizens and
around 21% have Russian citizenship10. Younger people tend more often to choose Estonian
citizenship, while Russian citizenship is chosen primarily by older people (mostly first
generation immigrants that have close emotional or other connection to Russia). As
concerning undetermined citizenship, there are fewer than average non-citizens of the age of
55 and older, while people of 10-54 years old are substantially represented in this category 11.
Demographer Hill Kulu draws some parallels between the later period of migration from the
rest of the USSR to Estonia and migration from southern to northern European countries after
WWII. The Baltic countries, including Estonia, were the most economically developed region
of the Soviet Union, attracting potential workforces. In this sense, they could be compared to
the rest of northern Europe, which also experienced large-scale immigration after the end of
the WWII. At the same time, the demographer’s analysis reveals more differences than
similarities between the two migration flows. The inflow of non-natives to Estonia was much
larger than any northern European country. In addition, the migration period lasted longer in
Estonia. Non-native newcomers found employment not just in industry, but also in the
administrative sector. Those peculiarities had a deep impact on the entire society. Migration
resulted in the emergence of towns and regions where natives lost majority status. This
development led to problems with the integration of ethnic minorities (Kulu 2001). These
problems are now acute in Estonian society.
5
2000 Population and Housing Census. Place of Birth and Migration. Statistical Office of Estonia. 2001.
6
Ibid.
7 Although available statistics on the matter refers only to non-Estonians, it is still reliable for Russian
minority, since other ethnicities constitute mere 6-7% of the entire population. Furthermore, substantial number
of representatives of other ethnicities speak Russian as their mother tongue and interact mostly with Russian
minority.
8
Estonian Citizenship and Migration Board Yearbook. Tallinn 2006.
9
For more detailed statistics on citizenship distribution and for overview on citizenship policies see the
section on „Collective Identities“ by Gerli Nimmerfeldt in this country-report.
10
2000 Population and Housing Census. Citizenship, Nationality, Mother Tongue and Command of
Foreign Languages. Statistical Office of Estonia. 2001
11
Ibid.
11
2.2 Demographic Characteristics of Tallinn and Kohtla-Järve/Jõhvi
2.2.1 Tallinn
Tallinn is the capital of Estonia and the administrative center of Harju County, which is
situated in the north-western part of Estonia. During the Soviet occupation, Tallinn played a
very important role due in part to Moscow's central policy of developing local capitals, and in
part because it is an industrial town with a good geographical position (Marksoo 2005:63).
Figure 2.3 Map of Tallinn
Source: Official website of Tallinn http://www.tallinn.ee/g4822
During much of the Soviet period, the city remained an attractive destination both for internal
and external migration flows. The flow of the migrants sometimes had to be curbed due to the
lack of accomodation. However despite the limitations on arriving workers that was put into
place by the city administration in the beginning of 1950's, the population continued to
increase. Rather quickly the restrictions were abolished thanks to the construction of new
apartment buildings. Since the 1960's, Tallinn began to attract even more migrants (mostly
non-Estonians) than any other region or town in Estonia. During 1965-1974 the city
population grew by 39%, during the next ten years the percent rose to 53% (Marksoo 2005:
67). The rising number of non-natives that came to Tallinn even managed for some time to tip
the balance. In 1989 Estonians constituted just 47,4 percent of the city population 12. Due to
the changes that followed independence in 1991 (e.g. emigration of many non-natives to
Russia and other former soviet republics), the trend was reversed. In the year 2007, Tallinn
12 Population and Housing Census 2000. Citizenship, Nationality, Mother Tongue and Command of Foreign
Languages. Statistical Office of Estonia. 2001
12
had 400 234 inhabitants, 52,4% of whom were Estonians 13. The city is home to 42,1% of all
Russians living in the country14.
Tallinn is divided in eight districts (see Figure 2.3) and the percentages of natives and nonnatives in those districts differ. The most populated (about ¼ Tallinn residents) district
Lasnamäe has merely 28,6% of Estonians. The other district, where Estonians constitute a
minority is Põhja-Tallinn (41,9%). Although Estonians in Haabersti make just 48,8%, they are
the largest group in the district (Russians constitute 41% of the Haabersti population). In three
districts (Kesklinn, Kristiine, Mustamäe) natives makes up from 55 to 75%. Nõmme (83,8%)
and Pirita (81,6%) are almost entirely populated by Estonians 15.
2.2.2 Kohtla-Järve/Jõhvi
Figure 2.4 Map of Ida-Virumaa
Source: http://www.tegutse.ee/turism/?a=kaart
Kohtla-Järve is an industrial town in the north-east with about 45 093 inhabitants 16. Some of
the respondents (mostly Estonians), are also from Jõhvi, the industrial town near Kohtla-Järve
with a population of 11 549 17. Kohtla-Järve is one of the biggest cities in Ida-Viru county
13
Tallinn arvudes 2007. Statistical Yearbook of Tallinn 2007. Tallinn City Government.
http://www.tallinn.ee/g2677s40983
14
Statistikaamet (Statistics Estonia). 2008. www.stat.ee
15
Tallinn arvudes 2007. Statistical Yearbook of Tallinn 2007. Tallinn City Government.
http://www.tallinn.ee/g2677s40983
16
Statistikaamet (Statistics Estonia). 2008. www.stat.ee
17
Jõhvi vallavalitsus (Jõhvi Municipal Council). 2008.
http://www.johvi.ee/index.php/mod/site/act/nav/id/268/i/118
13
with Jõhvi being the administrative center of the unit. The combined Russian population of
both cities account for about 16% of the entire Russian minority in Estonia 18.
The changes in Ida-Viru County were much more drastic than in Tallinn. Due to the vast
amount of oil-shale in the region, the Soviet government poured plenty of resources into the
local economy. Kohtla-Järve was built during the period to accomodate the growing mining
industry. The first non-native workers came to Ida-Virumaa right after the end of the WWII
and continued pouring in during the whole Soviet period. The urban population of the region
grew considerably more than the average across the country. Although a lot of people stayed,
many more chose to move to other large cities. Among the reasons, were the few possibilities
for employment outside the industrial sector and the worsening environmental conditions
(Marksoo 2005:74). As a result of Soviet policies and people's mobility, the population of
Kohtla-Järve in 1989 was 62 100. Jõhvi's population in 1989 was 15 600 inhabitants. In both
towns Estonians were outnumbered by immigrants.
Ida-Virumaa County was hit especially hard by the lossof resources from Moscow and the
subsequent collapse of big industries.Many of its inhabitants left the country or moved to
other parts of Estonia. In twenty years, Kohtla-Järve lost 17 000 people (almost 30%), while
Jõhvi's population declined by about 4 000 inhabitants (26%). The share of Estonians in IdaViru county remained low, at about 20% 19. Unlike Tallinn, Kohtla-Järve and Jõhvi do not
display any visible patterns of possible segregation of Estonians and non-Estonians according
to where they live.
2.2.3 Conclusion
The historical background and the different development paths of Tallinn and KohtlaJärve/Jõhvi may account for differences in the local representatives of the ethnic minority.
While the capital provided wide educational and career opportunities, the economy in KohtlaJärve/Jõhvi revolved around the oil-shale industry, thus limiting people's opportunities. This
encouraged many inhabitants of both ethnicities to move to Tallinn and contributed to the
decrease in the population of Kohtla-Järve and Jõhvi after Estonia regained its independence.
Since the majority of the inhabitants of the north-eastern cities are Russian, it makes it less
likely for Estonians and Russians to intermingle. This in turn may have some influence on the
number of Estonian citizens in each town, since in order to naturalize, potential citizens need
to demonstrate proficiency in the official language.
2.3 Demographic Characteristics of the TIES project respondents
2.3.1 Gender, Age, Citizenship
The number of male and female respondents in the study is not representative of national
statistics. The census of 2000 reveals that in both ethnic groups women outnumber men.
Among natives the gap is 7%, among Russians the divide is almost 11% 20. Even though
discrepancies between the sexes in the project are obvious for both groups, the gap between
18
2000 Population and Housing Census. Citizenship, Nationality, Mother Tongue and Command of
Foreign Languages. Statistical Office of Estonia. 2001
19
Statistikaamet (Statistics Estonia). 2008. www.stat.ee
20
2000 Population and Housing Census. Citizenship, Nationality, Mother Tongue and Command of
Foreign Languages. Statistical Office of Estonia. 2001
14
minority female and male groups in Kohtla-Järve/Jõhvi (in the tables the respondents of those
towns are put under Ida-Virumaa) is the widest (see Figure 2.1).
Table 2.1 Gender distribution by city of residence and ethnic group (TIES project)
City
Tallinn
Ida-Virumaa
Gender
Male
Ethnicity
Russian
Estonian
37.7
31.1
Total N
158
Female
62.3
68.9
306
Male
27.5
36.8
169
Female
72.5
63.2
367
In the project, Tallinn Estonians are more numerous than Tallinn Russians (257 to 207), but
the picture in Ida-Virumaa is vice versa (305 to 231). The overall age distribution is shown in
Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Age distribution by city of residence and ethnic group (TIES project)
City
Tallinn
Ida-Virumaa
Age groups
18-25 years
Ethnicity
Russian
Estonian
53.1
49.4
Total N
237
26-35 years
46.9
50.6
227
18-25 years
54.1
43.7
266
26-35 years
45.9
55.3
270
The average age for the minority group is 25,38, while for natives the number is 26,12.
Although Estonians are rather evenly represented in each age group, the Russian groups are
less balanced. Younger groups of 19, 20, 21 years are overrepresented, while older ones of 29,
30, 31 and 35 are underrepresented (see Figure 2.4). This can explain why the average age of
Russians in the TIES project is lower.
Figure 2.4 Age distribution of the TIES project respondents
15
Table 2.4 shows what kinds of citizenship are held by the representatives of the ethnic
minority in both cities. Slightly more than half of the Russian respondents haveEstonian
citizenship: 46,3% of those got the citizenship by birth; others – by naturalization. The
capital has a significantly higher percent of Estonian citizens than Ida-Virumaa, which reflects
the overall statistics on this subject. However, respondents in the north-east tend to get
Estonian citizenship by birth a bit more often than those in Tallinn (48,3% to 44,5%).
The second largest group is comprised of non-citizens. The number of people with
undetermined citizenship is substantially higher in Ida-Virumaa, which also corresponds to
national statistics. The case is similar with Russian citizenship. Although the difference is not
as noticeable as it is with undetermined citizenship, the Russians in the northeast of Estonia
are more likely to apply for Russian citizenship, if other options do not seem to be appealing
enough.
Table 2.4 Distribution of citizenship by city among Russians (TIES project)
City
Citizenship
Estonian
Undetermined
citizenship
Russian
Other
Total %
Total N
50.5
57.8
294
20.9
35.6
29.7
152
9.2
1.5
10.6
3.3
10.0
2.5
51
12
Tallinn
Ida-Virumaa
68.4
The percentages of Estonian and Russian citizens are higher among female respondents, while
males are more likely to have undetermined citizenship. During the census of 2000 in all three
cities, similar patterns could be observed. The women are 4-5% more likely to have Estonian
citizenship compared to men. The share of Russian citizens is about the same for females and
males. Males are however 3-5% more likely than females to have undetermined citizenship 21.
For both ethnic groups the majority of respondents answered that they live in the same city
they grew up in. The difference between the cities however is substantial. In Tallinn, about
3/5 of both Estonians and Russians lived in the same place in their mid-teens, while in IdaVirumaa the percentage rises to 72,7% for Estonians and 82% for Russians. The patterns of
moving are also different for both groups. Estonians that came to live in Tallinn in their midteens, moved rather evenly from different counties, Russians mostly came to Tallinn from
Ida-Virumaa. The pattern is the same for Kohtla-Järve/Jõhvi. People tend to move to the
county's centers from nearby towns, not crossing county lines. This fits with the overall trends
in the internal migration of different ethnic groups in independent Estonia (Tammur 2003).
2.3.2 Household Position and Family Status
There are not many differences between ethnic groups concerning family formation and
household situation. According to the census 2000, slightly more than 60% of people live in
households of 3 or more members 22. In the TIES project, the average number of household
21
2000 Population and Housing Census. Citizenship, Nationality, Mother Tongue and Command of
Foreign Languages. Statistical Office of Estonia. 2001
22
2000 Population and Housing Census. Sources of Subsistence. Employment and SocioEconomic Status. Statistical Office of Estonia. 2001.
16
members for both groups is 3. More than half of Russian respondents have families of 3-4
people. For natives, families of 2-3 are most common. At the same time, natives have more
families of 5-7 members compared to Russians. Estonians in Ida-Virumaa tend to have more
families with 4-6 members than those in Tallinn. There is no visible geographical connection
for Russians, with the exception of those households that consist of only one person (15% in
Tallinn to 5,9% in Kohtla-Järve/Jõhvi). Estonian women are more likely to live alone than
Russian women and men are more likely to live by themselves than women. It is rather rare
for families to have more than 2 children. Although there is not much difference between
ethnic groups, on average Russians have less children than Estonians.
Slightly more than half of respondents up to 25 years old of both ethnicities live with their
parent/s. About 10% continue to do that after turning 26. Overall statistics shows that
Estonians tend to be more independent than their Russian counterparts: 22,4% of Russians
and 28,7% of Estonians left their parents at the age of 18. This can be easily explained, since
this is the time when young people finish high school and choose whether to continue their
studies further or start working. However, there is not much difference between ethnic groups,
whereas the differences between cities are greater. Both Estonians and Russians in IdaVirumaa tend to leave their parental homes at a younger age (14-18 years old) than their
counterparts in the capital. In the northeast, natives are more prone to start living on their own
at a more tender age (14-18) than Russians, who outnumber Estonians in the older category
(19-23).
Table 2.5 Gender distribution and household position by ethnic groups (TIES project)
Household position categories
Head of a household/partner of a head
of a household
Child in a
household
Other
Russian
Male
Female
Total
54.1
69.9
64.9
43.4
27.5
32.5
2.5
2.6
2.6
Estonian
Male
Female
Total
57.4
71.9
67.0
37.0
25.2
29.2
5.6
2.8
3.8
Around one-fourth of females of both groups live with their parent/s, while more than twothirds consider themselves or their partner the head of the household. Considerably more
males tend to be children in a household as compared to females (see Table 2.5). More
detailed observation shows that Ida-Virumaa has substantially more Estonian females, who
are heads of households (39,7% to Tallinn's 27,5%). Fewer Estonians consider themselves as
merely a partner of the head of household in Kohtla-Järve and Jõhvi (29,5%) than in Tallinn
(46,8%). The same tendencies can be observed among Russian females; however the
difference between the cities is even greater. The trend seems to be generational and can be
noticed also among the respondents who live in a household with only one parent (mother).
This situation is more common in the northeast than in Tallinn (the difference this time is
bigger for the natives). The number for males who think of themselves as partners of the head
of household and those respondents who live in a household with only parent (father) are
minimal for both groups.
When it comes to the matter of being married to the partner one is currently living with, the
differences between ethnicities become evident (see Table 2.6). More than half of the
17
Russians are married to their current partner, while just 30% of Estonians are. In both groups
men are more likely to be married than women. The national statistics also confirms that
Estonians in the age groups 18-35 years tend to get married less than Russians. When it
comes to gender differences, women of both ethnic groups are about 7% more likely to be
married than men 23.
Table 2.6 Marital status by ethnicity and gender (TIES project)
Ethnicity
Male
Female
Married
Not married
Total
Married
Not married
Total
Russian
Estonian
60.9
39.1
48.9
56.7
43.3
203
34.7
65.3
51.1
28.0
72.0
175
Total %
Tota N
47.5
52.5
100.0
43.4
56.6
100
67
74
141
164
214
378
As far as the geographical component is concerned, Ida-Virumaa has a higher percentage of
married Estonian couples as compared to Tallinn. The opposite is true for Russian couples.
Differences in marital status between ethnic groups find reflection in the reasons for leaving
parental home. For Russians marrying is the most common reason to start living
independently (25% stated so), when just 6,4% of Estonians provided this explanation. For
both groups, the reason tostarting living with a partner is the second most often cited reason.
The greatest motivation for Estonians (one-third) to start living independently is
studying/going off to college. Among Russians, only about one-fifth stated that this was the
reason. There are some differences between the cities. As was already mentioned in the
section on marital status, both Russians and Estonians in Ida-Virumaa are more likely to get
married than to just start living with a partner as compared to Tallinn. In the capital, young
people do not rush to officially register their relations.
There is bigger difference between sexes among the Russian than among the native
respondents. The main reasons for Russian young men to leave their parental home are the
beginning of studies and desire to live alone. When it comes to females, about half of
respondents named getting married and to start living with a partner as the explanation for
living independently. For Estonians, there is almost no distinction between the sexes,
although starting to live with a partner was named more often by females (35%) than by
males (23,8%).
A bit more than half of respondents have at least one child that lives in the same household as
they do. There is almost no difference between natives and minority representatives in this
regard. Very few people, overall, have children that do not live with them (2,5% Estonians
and 3,5% Russians).
2.3.3 Parents' Background
During the Soviet period, people came to Estonia from all over the Soviet Union, including
the former soviet republics: 43,2% of respondents stated that neither of their parents were
23Population and Housing Census 2000. Marital Status and Fertility. Statistical Office of Estonia. 2001
18
born in Estonia. Slightly more than one-fourth claim that both of their parents came from
Russia (see Table 2.7). Almost one third of respondents have at least one parent who was born
in other Soviet Republics (except Estonia): 7,4% of fathers and 5,7% of mothers were born in
the Ukraine. The percentages for those born in Byelorussia are 5,1% and 4,5% accordingly.
The census reveals that the percentage of Ukrainians and Byelorussians among the country’s
population are 2,1% and 1,3% accordingly 24.
Table 2.7 Parents' country of birth (TIES project)
Mother's
Country of birth
Estonia
Russia
Father´s
Other
Don't know
% of Total
Estonia
0
21.1
6.8
0
27.9
Russia
19.9
27.5
7.0
0.6
55.1
Other
8.2
4.1
4.3
0
16.6
Don't know
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
Total %
Total N
28.3
52.7
18.2
0.8
100
145
270
93
4
512
If 56,3% stated that at least one parent was born in Estonia, then already 67,5% say that at
least one parent came to Estonia before the age of 15. One-fifth of Russians indicated that
both parents came to Estonia at a fairly young age. It is quite possible that they came to
Estonia with their parents, making it possible to consider about 20% of the survey
respondents already third-generation immigrants.
About half of the respondents' parents came to Estonia at the age of 18-25 years. This
corresponds with general statistics, which shows that the overwhelming majority of
immigrants came at a young age, probably right after getting vocational/higher education
(Hallik1998:14). This hypothesis is further confirmed by the following statistics: the main
reason for coming to Estonia was work (one-third), the second most common explanation was
coming with parents (26%), which is consistent with the statistics on parents' mobility
mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Fewer than 10% of parents of non-natives (7,5% of fathers and 3,4% of mothers) do not live
in Estonia anymore. The percentages of those parents who are no longer alive do not differ
between ethnic groups. About one-fifth of fathers and 7% of mothers were already dead at the
time of the survey. This is consistent with overall trends, which show that females in Estonia
live longer. However, considering that the average age of Russian parents is lower than
Estonians by two years, it also may point to the tendency of Russians die at a younger age
than natives.
A substantial majority of parents are married, though the number for natives is considerably
higher than for minority respondents (83,6% to 67,6%). At the same time, the duration of
Estonian marriage is on average shorter (22,7 years) than Russian marriages (24,7). One of
the explanations may be that Russians tend to get married and have kids at a younger age than
Estonians (this is confirmed by the fact, that the average age of Russian parents is 2 years
younger than Estonian parents). Geographically, the difference between parents being married
or not for Estonians is almost non-existent when compared with Russians. Percentage-wise,
Tallinn Russians are much more likely to have married parents than Ida-Virumaa Russians.
24
Population and Housing Census 2000. Citizenship, Nationality, Mother Tongue and Command of
Foreign Languages. Statistical Office of Estonia. 2001
19
The difference is almost 24%. About one third of parents in Kohtla-Järve/Jõhvi are not
married compared to just 17,4% in Tallinn.
Similar tendencies can be observed concerning the tendency of parents to stay together. Little
more than half of respondents say that their parents have always been together. For natives
there is no difference between cities: about 54% of parents are together and about one-third
are divorced. For minority representatives, the percentage of parents that stuck together is
higher for Tallinn Russians (62,6%) than for Ida-Virumaa (56%). The statistics for divorces is
understandably reversed: percentage of parents getting divorced is higher for the northeast of
Estonia.
The TIES project respondents are more likely to be Estonian citizens and much less likely to
be Russian citizens than their parents. When it comes to a more detailed observation of
parents' citizenship, mothers are more likely to have Estonian citizenship than fathers (see
Figure 2.8). About one-fifth have both parents with Estonian citizenship. Among the couples
that have just one Estonian citizen, it is more likely to be mother than father. Both mothers
and fathers without Estonian citizenship are more likely to live in Ida-Virumaa than in
Tallinn. One of possible explanations for why a larger percentage of females has Estonian
citizenship as compared to males, is the knowledge of Estonian language: 52,8% of mothers
who are Estonian nationals speak Estonian very well, well or satisfactorily. The percentage
for fathers is 44,4%.
Table 2.8 Parents' citizenship (TIES project)
Does your father/mother
have Estonian citizenship?
Father
Yes
No
No wish to
Don't know
% of Total
Mother
Yes
No
19.7
18.6
0
3.9
42.2
5.1
45.5
0
4.3
54.9
No wish to
answer
0
0
0.2
0
0.2
Don't
know
0.2
1.4
0
1.2
2.7
Total %
Total N
25.0
65.4
0.2
9.4
100.0
128
335
1
48
512
2.4 Conclusion
The immigration of Russians to Estonia started right after the occupation of the republic by
the Soviet Union. At first, the migration was centralized, however later on people were mostly
motivated by economic opportunities and personal reasons. At first people came from
European parts of the Soviet Union, while later more people originated from more distant
regions. About half of today's Russians (mostly of younger ages) were born in Estonia. Older
generations are less likely to have Estonian citizenship. Although the majority of both natives
and non-natives are living in the same city as they used to in their mid-teens, the patterns of
those who moved differ according to the ethnic group.
Statistics on household position and family status reveal no major differences between the
two ethnic groups. The only exception here being that Russians tend to marry more often and
earlier compared to Estonians. Other than that, differences are small. The average number of
household members is three. Position in the household differs more between sexes than
between ethnic groups.
20
It seems that in some aspects the geographical situation has more influence than ethnicity.
Parents of Russians that live in Tallinn are more often married than those who live in IdaVirumaa. In case of both Russians and Estonians females tend more often to be the head of
households in the north-eastern Estonia than in Tallinn.
The data on parents' backgrounds mostly confirms general statistics. While the majority of
non-natives came from the territory that today is known as the Russian Federation, about onethird of respondents say that at least one of their parents came to Estonia from someother
former Soviet republic. The percentage of those who came from Ukraine and Byelorussia are
a little larger than shown in the census 2000, but is still representative of general trends in the
distribution of ethnic minorities in Estonia. Among the main reasons for coming to Estonia
are work and moving here with one's parents. About one-fifth of the respondents could be
considered already third generation immigrants, since both of their parents came to Estonia
before their mid-teens. Among respondents' parents more females than males have Estonian
citizenship. The same pattern is evident with respect to knowledge of Estonian language.
References
Hallik, K. 1998. Eestimaa muulased: ajalooline ja demograafiline taust. Vene küsimus ja Eesti
valikud. Tallinn, TPÜ RASI, TPÜ kirjastus.
Estonian Statistical Office. www.stat.ee
Kirch, A. 1997. Socio-Demographic Changes during 1945-1995 and Their Causes. In A.
Kirch (Ed): The Integration of Non-Estonians into Estonian Society: History, Problems and
Trends Tallinn,Estonian Academy Publishers.
Kulu, H. 1998. Eesti välissündinud rahvastiku kujunemine ja rändelugu. RU Sari B, No 38.
Tallinn, EKDK.
Kulu, H. 2001. Sõjajärgne sisseränne Eestisse võrdlevas perspektiivis. Akadeemia, 11(152):
2379-2395.
Marksoo, A. 2005. Linnastumine ja ränne nõukogude perioodil. In Hill Kulu ja Tiit Tammaru
(Eds): Asustus ja ränne Eestis. Uurimusi Ann Marksoo 75. sünnipäevaks, Tartu, Tartu
Ülikooli kirjastus.
Sakkeus, L. 1999. Migratsioon ja selle mõju Eesti demograafilisele arengule. J. Viikberg
(Ed): Eesti rahvaste raamat. Tallinn, Eesti Entsüklopeedia Kirjastus, 310-325.
Tallinn arvudes 2007. Statistical Yearbook of Tallinn 2007. Tallinn City Government.
Tammaru, T. 1999. Venelased Eestis: Ränne ja kohanemine. Tallinn, Sisekaitseakadeemia
kirjastus.
Tammur, A. 2003. Siserände rahvuserinevused. Ränne üleminekuaja Eestis. Tallinn,
Statistikaamet.
21
3. Integration policies in Estonia
Written and prepared by Raivo Vetik and Nastja Sokolova 25
3.1 Introduction
Integration policies in Estonia started in the second half of 1990s. Currently the policies are
based on “Estonian Integration Strategy 2008-2013”. Before the strategy was adopted the
following steps in developing integration policies can be mentioned:
1. The integration of non-Estonians into Estonian society: setting the course, compiled in
1997 on the initiative of the United Nations Development Programme, served as the basis for
both the integration-related documents passed by the Government in 1998-1999 and also for
the state programme “Integration in Estonian society 2000-2007”. The integration of nonEstonians into Estonian society: setting the course examined integration, based on the
attitudes of social groups and political, cultural, educational, media and economic policy and
regional policy aspects in the area - the same topics that are either broadly or narrowly
covered by this programme.
2. On 16.07.1997, the Government formed a 17-member expert committee for the
examination of demography and the integration of ethnic minorities into Estonian society, and
the making of recommendations to the Government. The main task of the committee became
the development of the foundations of the state integration policy. On 10.02.1998 the
Government approved the draft document presented by the expert committee, entitled The
Bases of the Estonian state integration policy for the integration of non-Estonians into
Estonian society. The above-mentioned document was discussed by the Riigikogu and passed
on 10.06.1998. The document was a logical sequel to the document The Integration of nonEstonians into Estonian society: setting the course, and in concentrated form revealed the
principal emphases and objectives of future state integration policy. The bases of the Estonian
state integration policy for the integration of non-Estonians into Estonian society also serves
25
Raivo Vetik is professor at the Tallinn University, Nastja Sokolova is a MA student at the Tallinn University.
22
as a basis for this state programme, which in many respects focuses on the changes made in
the field of non-Estonian-language education, devoting particular attention to the target group
children and youth. The second important task of the integration process is the enabling of the
preservation of non-Estonians' ethnic identity; as a result the state programme also devotes
special attention to non-Estonians' opportunities for acquiring education in their mother
tongue and preserving their culture.
3. On 14.03.2000, the Government approved the state programme “Integration in Estonian
society 2000-2007”. It was an action plan for governmental agencies and other institutions for
the years 2000-2007. The process of developing the Programme included substantial political
debate, although less time was allowed for non-governmental and minority groups to
comment on earlier drafts of the Programme. The Integration Programme reflects a view of
integration as a two-way process. It envisions allowing minorities to retain their distinct
identity, while increasing their participation in and loyalty to the Estonian State, mainly
through the medium of Estonian language instruction; a common linguistic sphere is viewed
as both a means to enhance inclusion of minorities, and to reduce inequalities or tensions that
may exist. Minority representatives have expressed concern that the emphasis on language
does not take into account other barriers to integration, which the Integration Programme
suggests should be addressed through complementary programme.
3. 2 Short outline of the “Estonian Integration Strategy 2008-2013”
For the next six years, the state integration policy will be based on “Estonian Integration
Strategy 2008-2013”. The Integration Strategy acts both as a strategy and action plan for
government institutions and other institutions in the field of integration. The Integration
Strategy is comprised of two parts: the strategy that stipulates goals for the plan, and the
action plan gives an overview of the planned activities and their costs.
What is the concept of integration in the strategy? Integration is defined as a friendly and safe
co-existence that is based on mutual acceptance and respect. Integration means that all
residents of Estonia have an equal interest, desire and opportunities for contributing to the
development of the state and participating in social life, regardless of their ethnic background
and mother tongue.
What is the desired outcome of the Integration Strategy? The strategy stipulates that
integration is a long-term process aimed at increasing the feeling of social belonging of every
resident by sharing common values of the Estonian society and competence in the state
language. The aim of the strategy is to achieve conditions, when all permanent residents of
Estonia, irrespective of their ethnic origin feel secure in Estonia, are competent in the state
language, share the values underlying the Constitution, are able to lead of fulfilled life by
participating in the societal, economic and cultural life of the country. Everyone is guaranteed
the right to preserve and develop his/ her language and culture.
23
The Integration Strategy is aimed at reaching a situation by the year 2013, in which:
•
Contacts between people of different cultural background has increased (In 2007 65%
of Estonians and 39% of people of other ethnic background had practically no mutual
contacts)
•
Differences in the participation of the Estonian- and non-Estonian-speaking population
in nongovernmental organisations and the public sphere has decreased (In 2007 12% of
Estonians and 1% of people of other nationalities belong to nongovernmental organisations)
•
Majority of inhabitants of Estonia trust people of other nationalities living in Estonia
(In 2007 28% of Estonians and 82% of people of other nationalities think that the greater
participation of people of other nationalities in economic and political affairs would be
beneficial for Estonia)
•
Estonian-language proficiency has improved at all levels among people whose native
language is not Estonian (In 2005 22% of 15- to 74-year-olds consider their language skills to
be good, 25% regarded it average, 29% poor and 24% could not at all speak Estonian)
•
The share of people with undetermined citizenship among Estonia’s population has
consistently decreased (In 2007 they made up 9% of Estonia’s population)
•
The majority of people whose native language is not Estonian regularly get
information from Estonian-language media and trust it (In 2005 26% of people of other
nationalities regularly consumed Estonian-language media)
Differences in the employment rate and incomes of employees of different nationalities have
decreased (In 2007 31% of Estonians and 19% other nationalities held senior and managerial
positions; 35% of Estonians and 53% of other nationalities were employed as skilled or
unskilled )
The Integration Strategy will be implemented in the following fields:
Educational and cultural integration
The general purpose of the field is to provide equal opportunities for all residents of Estonia
for acquiring education in a common educational system, and conditions for preserving their
own language and culture.
Goals of the field for the year 2013:
•
90% of children whose native language is other than Estonian have the opportunity to
participate in Estonian-language studies in kindergarten, pre-school and other children’s
institutions (In 2007 75% of children has access to Estonian language training)
•
The average result for the final exam in Estonian among basic school graduates from
Russian medium schools is 68 points (In 2007 the average result was 62.7 points)
•
90% of Russian medium secondary school graduates will get 60 or more points in the
final exam in Estonian as a second language (In 2007 78% of students received more than 60
points)
•
30% of Estonia’s vocational school graduates will get 60 or more points in the
language placement exam (In 2007 20% of vocational school graduates received 60 points or
more)
•
An equal share of students from Estonian- and Russian-medium vocational schools
who enter the labour market or continue their education will be maintained (In 2007 73% of
24
graduates from schools with Russian-language instruction and 71% from schools with
Estonian-language instruction started working or continued their education)
•
The ratio of students who interrupt their studies in higher education is similar among
students who studied previously in Estonian or in Russian (In 2007 10,7% of students who
previously studies in Estonian and 13,4% of students who previously studied in Russian
interrupted their studies.)
•
50% of teachers receive knowledge about teaching students with various cultural
backgrounds and different native languages in the course of their specialized training (2007:
reference level unknown)
•
Introduction of a multicultural dimension into curricula as a recurrent theme
•
State support will continue for actively operating non-Estonian cultural societies and
other organisations (2007: 153 organisations)
•
45,000 young people and adults have participated in cooperative projects (almost
7,000 annually) (In 2007: 3,000 young people and adults participated in cooperative projects)
A few important activities:

teachers and principals of Estonian and Russian medium schools will participate in
training in multicultural education;

some 3-5 new kindergartens and schools will join the language immersion
programme every year,

all teachers and heads of schools Russian medium school will pass courses in the
Estonian language,

the annual support of about 150 cultural societies of ethnic minorities and 15
Sunday schools will continue,

annual extra-curricular (language) study projects are organized in the summer for
about 1500 young people speaking Estonian and other languages,

about 1450 Estonian and Russian speaking young people will learn about Estonian
state, government, history and the cultural history of Estonia via study trips,

about 2500 adult Estonians and people of other nationalities will participate in joint
activities every year.
Social and economic integration
The goal is to guarantee equal opportunities in the labour market for all of Estonia’s residents
regardless of their ethnic background or mother tongue.
Purposes of the field for the year 2013:
•
About 400 people have participated in labour exchange programmes over the last 6
years, a total of about 5000 people have participated in free language courses and about 4000
people in integrated language and professional courses (2007: 72 people participated in
labour exchange, 1009 people participated in language and professional courses)
25
•
Training programmes for employers on working with and in culturally diverse
working environment will be developed (new activity)
•
About 500 people participate in accommodation programmes and support activities for
new adult immigrants. Support systems have been implemented in the workplace (new
activity)
A few important activities:
•
Labour exchange programmes and courses in the Estonian language are provided
annually for about 55 public and private sector employees
•
Combined professional and Estonian language courses are organized annually for
about 600 unemployed people of other nationalities,
•
Intercultural communication courses are organized for employers and employees
(new activity),
•
Integration programme will be developed for new adult immigrants (new activity).
Legal and political integration
The goal is to guarantee equal opportunities for participation in public and political life for all
residents of Estonia regardless of their ethnic background or mother tongue based on the law
in and politics.
Purposes of the field for the year 2013:
•
The awareness of the population, including civil servants, about the importance of
equal treatment and the prevention of unequal treatment is increased (the mapping of the
situation and training of the decision makers in the public sector for the assembly and
management of multicultural teams, new activity)
•
The shared informational field for inhabitants of Estonia will increase through the
increase in audience of the Estonian National Broadcasting among the Russian-speaking
population up to 75% (In 2007 60% of Russian speakers followed ENB)
•
12,000 people have successfully completed the exam on the Constitution and the
Citizenship Act (2,000 people per year) (In 2007:1,800 people successfully completed the
exam)Citizenship ceremonies will continue
A few important activities:
•
About 1500 people will attend the free courses for the exam on the Constitution of
the Republic of Estonia and the Citizenship Act every year,
•
Free language courses for applicants for the Estonian citizenship will be provided
for about 1500 people every year,
•
Every year, awareness-raising activities will be organized for improving people’s
knowledge of the conditions for applying for citizenship, equal treatment and tolerance,
•
As of 2008, new Estonian citizens will receive a certificate of citizenship at a festive
ceremony
26
•
Every year, forums and debates are organized on the topic of different aspects of
integration and participation of other nationalities in the public sphere
•
Estonian and Russian media publications and channels are supported to introduce
the national minorities living in Estonia and the topic of integration to a wider public.
The implementation plan of the Integration Strategy stipulates the activities of the Integration
Foundation, Office of the Minister for Population and Ethnic Affairs, Ministries and other
partners for the years 2008-2010. The action plan is prepared for the following three budget
years; the second part of the action plan will be prepared for the period 2011-2013. In the
action plan consists of more than 200 different activities for promoting integration. The
budget for 2008-2010 is 492 554 000 EEK. The activities of 2008 have been approved in the
state budget; the budgets for 2009 and 2010 are estimated.
3.3 Integration Policies in Tallinn and Kohtla-Järve
Since the research project took place mostly in Tallinn and Kohtla-Järve, this section focuses
on the integration policies of the two cities. Neither of the cities has a comprehensive
integration policy at the moment. However Tallinn is in the process of writing one and it
should be ready in the near future.
Both cities in their development strategies point out the importance of integrating ethnic
minorities. The long-term development strategy of Tallinn of 2009-2027 26 sees the coexistence of different ethnicities in one city both as a challenge and as a resource that could be
used to the city's advantage. Kohtla-Järve city strategy 2007-2016 27 also refers to the
importance of the successful integration of Estonian society for current and future inhabitants.
The area that gets the most attention in this respect is education however differences between
the two cities are evident. Kohlta-Järve focuses mostly on the children and students by
increasing the number of language immersion classes in kindergartens and schools. Despite
referring in the strategy to the lack of Estonian speaking teachers and to the inadequate level
of Estonian proficiency by Russian-speaking teachers, there is very little mention of any
projects/policies that are aimed toward improving the situation. Tallinn has an extensive and
diverse implementation programme for the sphere of education 28. The targets include
improving the knowledge of Estonian language of both non-Estonian students and teachers.
The main contributors of financial resources are the education department of Tallinn and the
schools themselves. The city also plans to cooperate with embassies, so that they can support
the culture and language studies for those children, whose mother tongue is neither Estonian
nor Russian.
Both cities try to engage people in discussions on the subject of integration. Tallinn holds the
so called Home Peace Forum 29, which consists of periodic discussions focusing on different
aspects and problems of integration. Although the main discussions are lead by notable social
scientists and professionals in other fields, anyone who is interested is welcome to come and
26
Tallinna arengukava 2009-2027 (Tallinn development programme 2009-2027). Tallinna linnakantselei
arenguteenistus. Tallinn 2008
27
Kohlta-Järve Linna Arengukava 2007-2017 (Development programme of Kohlta-Järve City).
28
Tallinna põhi- ja üldkeskhariduse arengukava 2008-2014 rakenduskava (Implementation Programme of
the Development Strategy for Tallinn Basic and Secondary Education 2008-2014).
29
Kodurahu Foorum (Home Peace Forum) http://www.tallinn.ee/est/g6210s38444
27
join in the discussions. The first discussion took place in May 2007, the sixth in September
2008. Kohlta-Järve’s city council in cooperation with the Integration Center of Ida-Virumaa 30,
Ida-Virumaa’s county council and others, also organized series of conferences on integration.
Since integration is not limited by education, other spheres are touched upon as well,
however, not as extensively. In Kohlta-Järve, these include the re-integration of the
unemployed into the job market. One of the aims of the project, which lasted from 2004-2008
was to teach the participants elementary level Estonian. In the cultural sphere, festivals are
held, such as the festival of national cultures of Ida-Virumaa in 2005-2008.
Both cities cooperate with non-governmental organisations on issues of integration. KohtlaJärve does work with the Integration Center of Ida-Virumaa, receives financing for projects
for the Russian-language schools from the Integration Foundation and other funds (including
on the European Union level). Tallinn supports financially different projects of nongovernmental organisations, including those, whose aim is to improve relations between
natives and non-natives.
To conclude, the integration policies of both cities are mostly a number of separate multiple
projects rather than comprehensive programmes. Both cities pay attention to the issue of
integration of minorities into the Estonian society mostly by focusing on the improvement of
Estonian language skills among non-Estonians. The integration policies are mostly aimed at
minorities, though there are attempts to help natives to understand and get acquainted with the
minorities' cultures and different issues that people of other ethnicities face.
30
Email exchange with Aleksandr Dusman, Integration Center of Ida-Virumaa
28
4. Education
Written and prepared by Kristina Lindemann 31
The aim of this chapter is to give an overview of young Russians’ and Estonians’
participation in the education system. The focus of this chapter is on the educational
attainment of different ethnic groups. It describes the opportunities that Russians and
Estonians have and the choices they make at different educational levels: in pre-school, basic
education, secondary education and higher education. In Estonian basic and secondary
schools the main language of instruction can be either Estonian or Russian. Thus the question
of ethnic segregation is discussed. The chapter also gives an overview of the study climate in
school and relations with teachers, which may have an important influence on students’
motivation to study and on satisfaction with the school.
School success is related to support from the family. Therefore resources of the family and the
support of parents and siblings during studies are described. In addition, the chapter gives an
overview of respondents’ subjective estimation of the equality of the educational system and
also looks at the discrimination experiences of Russians. At the end of the chapter, Russian
youth opinion about the possible consequences of ongoing school reform is discussed.
4.1 Educational system in Estonia
Pre-school education is not compulsory in Estonia, however a large percentage of children are
enrolled in pre-school institutions. In 2007, 86% of children aged 3-6 years attended
kindergartens (Statistical Office of Estonia 2008). Compulsory education starts at age seven,
when children must start their studies in basic school. Attendance is compulsory until age 17
or until graduation from basic school, if it is achieved before age 17. In the Estonian
31
Kristina Lindemann is a Phd student at the Tallinn University
29
education system primary and lower secondary education are not differentiated, and they form
single level of basic education consisting of 9 grades (Figure 4.1). Youth who have not
completed basic education can attend vocational training as an alternative route to receiving
their basic education degree. After basic school, the education system divides into three
tracks: general secondary education, vocational secondary education and vocational
education. Graduates from general and vocational secondary school can continue studies in
higher education. Basic and secondary schools are mainly public schools, where there is no
tuition fee.
Higher education is divided into professional higher education and academic higher
education. There are several private higher education institutions in Estonia. The number of
students paying tuition fees has increased as more than half students studied in non-state
commissioned places in 2007 (Ministry of Education 2008).
Figure 4.1 Estonian educational system
In Estonia, basic schools and secondary schools may have either Estonian or Russian as the
primary language of instruction. According to Ministry of Education the number of pupils in
Russian schools is continually declining. In 1991, about 37% of pupils studied in Russian
school, whereas in 2006 approximately 20% of pupils study in Russian language schools
(Ministry of Education 2008).
In 2007, educational reform was instituted which aims to change Russian general secondary
schools to bilingual schools, where 60% of studies are conducted in the Estonian language.
According to legislation for the 2011/2012 academic year, the national curriculum for those
entering 10th grade will comprise five courses in the Estonian language (Estonian Literature,
30
Civic Education, Music, Estonian History, and Geography). Estonian-language instruction in
at least the Estonian Literature course started from 1st September 2007 in the 10th grades of
Russian-language schools (Ministry of Education 2008).
In public higher education institutions, the language of instruction is mainly Estonian. It is
also possible to continue studies in Russian language in private higher education institutions,
where students have to pay tuition fees. In 2007, 55% of all students studying in Russian were
studying in private applied higher education institutions (7% of students studying in Estonian
attended these institutions). In total, 11% of all students in higher education are studying in
Russian (Ministry of Education 2008).
4.2 Enrolment in pre-schools
In Estonia, the language of instruction in kindergartens is Estonian or Russian. Therefore
enrolment in pre-school does not mean acquiring Estonian language skills. In principal,
parents can choose between kindergartens, although long queues for vacancies reduce the
scope of choices.
Most of the TIES respondents have been enrolled in pre-school (Table 4.1). The percentage of
Russians who have attended kindergarten is somewhat higher than Estonians. Differences
between Estonians’ and Russians’ pre-school enrolment are larger in the older age group,
while the gap has narrowed for the younger age group. Kindergarten attendance in Tallinn and
Kohtla-Järve is quite similar. There are no differences between the enrolment rates for
Russian girls and boys in pre-school, while fewer Estonian girls tend to be enrolled in
kindergarten.
Table 4.1 The share of respondents who attended in pre-school by age group
Estonians
Russians
18-25
years old
26-35
years old
Total
15-25
years old
26-35
years old
Total
Enrolled in kindergarten
87.2
81.5
93.8
92.2
95.7
84.2
Did not enrol in
kindergarten
12.8
18.5
6.2
7.8
4.3
15.8
227
260
487
268
234
502
N
4.3 Educational attainment of TIES respondents
Table 4.2 gives an overview of the highest completed educational level Estonian and Russian
respondents who are not currently studying. According to TIES survey relatively similar
proportions of Estonians and Russians have completed only basic education or less. On the
secondary level, Russians have more often attained vocational education and professional
secondary education, while more Estonians have completed general secondary education.
Rather similar percentages of Estonians and Russians have attained vocational or professional
education after secondary school. In total, almost one third of Estonians have completed some
form of higher education (31%). The share of Russians who have completed higher education
31
is considerably lower (20%). Russians have more often completed applied higher education,
whereas Estonians have more often completed Bachelor’s studies.
Table 4.2 Highest completed educational level of non-studying youth
Tallinn and Kohtla-Järve
Age 18-35 years
Second
Estonians
generation
Russians
Basic education or less (inc vocational
training)
Vocational education after basic ed.
General secondary education
Professional secondary education after
basic ed.
Vocational secondary education after
secondary ed.
Professional secondary education after
secondary ed.
Applied higher education
Bachelor
Master
N
1
1
All Estonia
Age 18-35 years
Estonians
Russians
13
14
23
17
15
21
18
17
21
22
25
22
5
15
8
5
9
9
6
5
7
9
7
8
10
18
3
12
7
1
4
11
1
3
13
1
330
344
2200
785
Calculations based on Estonian Labour Force Survey 2005.
In Table 4.2 TIES data is compared with the Estonian Labour Force Survey (ELFS) data.
ELFS represents non-studying youth aged 18-35 from the whole of Estonia. Results from
ELFS are a bit different, mainly because it includes respondents from all over Estonia not just
Tallinn and Kohta-Järve and because it includes all Russian youth not only those born in
Estonia. In general, ELFS data shows that Estonians more often achieve only basic education,
while Russians complete more vocational education after basic school. The share of youth
with general secondary education is equal for both ethnic groups. There were also no major
differences between ethnic groups at the level of higher education.
Table 4.3 Highest completed educational level of respondents who are currently studying
Basic education or less (inc vocational training)
Vocational secondary education after basic ed.
General secondary education
Professional secondary education after basic ed.
Vocational secondary education after secondary ed.
Professional secondary education after secondary ed.
Applied higher education
Bachelor
Master
N
Estonians
36
4
40
1
3
5
5
7
1
Russians
32
3
54
5
1
1
0
4
0
157
168
Table 4.3 present highest completed level of education of those respondents who are still
studying. About one third of them have completed basic education. More than half of
32
Russians who are currently studying have completed general secondary education and this
share is also quite substantial among Estonians. Results also indicate that more Estonians than
Russians have continued their studies after the completion of applied higher education or
Bachelor’s degree.
Table 4.4 indicates that Estonians are more often completely satisfied with their level of
education, whereas Russians say more frequently that they are mostly satisfied. The most
satisfied are Estonians aged 18-25 years, although many of them have probably not finished
their studies yet. Also younger Russians are more satisfied with their educational level than
Russians aged 26-35 years. Both Estonians and Russians living in Tallinn are bit more
satisfied with their educational level than respondents in Kohtla-Järve.
Table 4.4 Satisfaction with completed level of education by age group
Completely satisfied
Mostly satisfied
Partly satisfied
Mostly unsatisfied
Completely unsatisfied
N
18-25
years old
26
43
21
8
3
Estonians
26-35
years old
19
45
24
9
5
220
258
22
44
22
8
4
15-25
years old
15
54
19
9
3
Russians
26-35
years old
13
51
21
13
2
478
245
230
Total
Total
14
53
20
11
3
475
4.4 Experiences at basic school
Schools with Russian language of instruction are mainly located in larger cities and areas
where many Russians live. There are several Russian schools in Tallinn and Kohtla-Järve. In
these cities, parents, in principle, have the opportunity to choose whether their child attends a
Russian or Estonian language school, although the child must be prepared to follow the
courses in the chosen language.
Most of TIES Russian respondents studied in a basic school with Russian as the language of
instruction (97%). Even though the percentage of Russians in Estonian language schools is
low, the few Russians who did study in Estonian schools felt that they were as welcome as
ethnic Estonian students.
Table 4.5 indicates that most respondents have studied in schools where almost all other
pupils are of the same ethnicity. Therefore most respondents do not have the experience of
communicating with classmates from the other ethnicity.
Table 4.5 The share of Russians at class in the basic school
None or just a few
About 25%
About half
About 75%
Almost everybody
Estonians
Russians
91
3
1
1
4
3
0
0
2
95
33
N
485
508
Table 4.6 shows that the reasons for choosing basic schools are similar for both ethnic groups.
The main motivation for choosing a certain school is the proximity of the school to home. The
majority of respondents reported that the school was chosen because it was the local school
for students who lived in that area. About one fifth of respondents reported that school choice
was their parents’ decision. Results also indicate that language immersion programmes in
school were not important factors for school selection, as only few Russians named that to be
an important factor in school choice.
Table 4.6 Reasons for choosing basic school
Because this was the local school for students who lived in that area
Because this school had no specialization
Because this school was known to be a better school than others in the
area
Because this school offered specific study programmes
Because this school had a particular religion or philosophy of life (for
example Steiner- and Waldorf)
Because this school had language immersion programmes
Because my parents decided so
Because siblings attended this school
Because there were/ are few Russian students in this school
Because there were no other schools with Russian language of
introduction in the neighbourhood
Other reasons
Estonians
Russians
82
2
83
2
12
11
7
3
0
0
21
9
-
4
21
6
0
-
2
3
2
Analysis shows that school success does not differ across ethnic groups in terms of repeating
classes in basic school. The majority of Estonians and Russians have not repeated class (95 %
and 99% respectively). Also, dropping out from basic school is not very common for either
ethnic group. About 2% of Estonians and 0.5% of Russians did not finish their studies in basic
school and some of these youth continued their studies later in vocational training, where they
also had the possibility of attaining basic education.
School success is often related to the study environment and relations in school. Table 4.7
gives an overview of respondents’ relationships with teachers in basic school. In general,
respondents have rather positive opinion about their teachers. It seems that Russians had
somewhat better relations with teachers in school than Estonians. More Russians totally agree
with statement that they got along well with teachers, although the percentage of Estonians
who at least agree with this statement is also high. Russian women in particular, reported that
their relationships with teachers in school were positive.
Russians agree more strongly with the statement that most teachers listened to them in basic
school. There are also significant gender differences with respect to this question. Russian
women more often reported that they had good communication with teachers, while Estonian
men reported more often that teachers were not listening to them. Russians living in KohtlaJärve also reported better contact with teachers compared to others.
Most Estonians and Russians reported that they received help from their teachers when they
needed it. Russians agreed a bit more strongly with this statement. Compared with male
34
respondents both Estonian and Russian women reported more often that they got help when
they needed it.
Table 4.7 Relations with teachers in basic school
Estonians
Russians
45
39
11
5
0
54
33
9
4
0
487
507
29
43
19
8
1
42
36
14
7
1
486
505
38
38
14
8
2
43
35
13
7
2
486
508
Get along well with teachers
Totally agree
Agree
Neutral
Do not agree
Totally disagree
N
Most teachers listened to me
Totally agree
Agree
Neutral
Do not agree
Totally disagree
N
My teachers gave me help when needed
Totally agree
Agree
Neutral
Do not agree
Totally disagree
N
4.5 Secondary school
Table 4.8 gives an overview of the tracks that youth have chosen in secondary school. About
three-quarters of Estonians have attended general secondary school, while 65% of Russians
chose this general track. On the other hand, Russians aged 18-25 do not differ much from
Estonians in terms of secondary school choice, while Russians aged 26-35 have more often
attended vocational and professional secondary schools.
Table 4.8 Track of secondary education by age group
18-25
Estonians
26-35
Total
18-25
Russians
26-35
Total
General secondary
Vocational secondary
Professional secondary
74
23
3
71
24
5
73
23
4
73
21
6
56
28
17
65
24
11
N
217
244
461
258
218
476
A larger percentage of Estonians than Russians have studied in classes with specialization in
general secondary school (13% and 7% respectively). Almost all respondents have attended
only public secondary schools. For this reason, very low percentage of respondents has paid a
tuition fee for studies at the secondary level.
35
The majority of Russians have studied in Russian language schools during secondary school
(95%). Those few Russians who did study in Estonian language schools felt that they were as
welcome or even more welcome in school than Estonians. Table 4.9 describes the share of
Russians in secondary school. It indicates that even in the secondary school Russians and
Estonians do not meet as classmates. Most Russian respondents studied in classes where the
other pupils were also Russian. Similarly, most Estonians had none or just a few classmates of
Russian ethnicity.
Table 4.9 The share of Russians at class in the secondary school
None or just a few
About 25%
About half
About 75%
Almost everybody
N
Estonians
Russians
91
3
2
1
3
4
1
1
3
91
460
472
Graduation or dropping out from secondary school reflects the success of studies. The dropout rate from secondary school does not differ significantly between ethnic groups. About 6%
of Estonians and 7% of Russians quit their studies before graduation.
4.6 Higher education
In Estonia, higher education divides into the professional track and the academic track.
Analysis of educational attainment concluded that Russians attain more often applied higher
education, while Estonians follow more academic track (Table 4.2. above). Table 4.10 shows
the share of respondents who study in public or private educational institutions in both the
academic and professional tracks. There is not much difference between ethnic groups.
Applied higher education is more often pursued in public schools, whereas about one fifth of
respondents in Bachelor’s study are studying in private institutions.
Table 4.10 The type of school at higher educational level
Applied higher education
Public
Private
N
Estonians
Russians
90
10
89
9
97
115
80
21
78
22
132
67
Bachelor’s study
Public
Private
N
Students have to pay tuition fees in private education institutions and also in public
institutions if they are not state commissioned. Table 4.11 shows that Russians more often pay
36
tuition fees for studies in applied higher education institutions than do Estonians. The share of
respondents paying tuition fees for Bachelor studies do not differ between ethnic groups.
Table 4.11 Share of respondents paying tuition fee for higher education
Estonians
Russians
30
70
34
86
96
120
47
53
49
51
136
70
Applied higher education
Tuition fee
No tuition fee
N
Bachelor’s study
Tuition fee
No tuition fee
N
Compared with the secondary level of education, a considerable proportion of Russians
continued their studies in Estonian at the level of higher education (Table 4.12). However,
more than half of Russians continued their studies in Russian.
Table 4.12 The language of instruction at higher education, Russians
Applied higher education
Bachelor’s study
Estonian language
Russian language
Other
N
40
40
58
57
2
3
120
70
Table 4.13 shows that ethnic segregation is lower at the level of higher education compared
with secondary schools because the language of instruction is mainly Estonian in public
higher education institutions. About one quarter of Russians attain higher education where
there are only a few Russians or where only 25% of students are Russian. Also Estonians
study in ethnically more mixed environments, especially in the academic track.
Table 4.13 The share of Russians at group in the higher education institution
Estonians
Russians
82
6
5
4
3
13
11
7
12
58
97
120
72
21
6
1
1
13
12
13
15
47
136
70
Applied higher education
None or just a few
About 25%
About half
About 75%
Almost everybody
N
Bachelor’s study
None or just a few
About 25%
About half
About 75%
Almost everybody
N
37
Success in higher education in terms of graduating does not differ significantly between
ethnic groups as a similar share of Russians and Estonians end their studies before graduating
(Table 4.14). Students in applied higher education tend to interrupt their studies more often
than students in Bachelor’s studies.
Table 4.14 The state of studies
Applied higher education
Graduated
Not graduated
Ongoing
N
Estonians
Russians
54
19
27
40
17
44
97
120
49
11
40
40
9
51
136
70
Bachelor’s study
Graduated
Not graduated
Ongoing
N
4.7 The role of family support
Resources in the family often have significant effects on educational careers of youth. These
resources may be the educational levels of parents and siblings and the number of books in
the home. Table 4.15 gives an overview of the highest completed educational level of
respondent’s mother and father. In general, it seems that Russian respondents have parents
with somewhat higher educational levels than Estonian respondents. However, this is not
necessarily an advantage for Russians as many of their parents have received their education
outside of Estonia. For this reason, it is difficult to compare directly the educational level of
respondents’ parents. In addition, in the case of higher education it was not possible to control
whether parents have academic or professional higher education.
Table 4.15 Highest completed educational level of mother and father
Estonians
Father
Mother
Primary education or less
Basic education
General secondary education
Vocational education
Specialized secondary education
Higher education
N
Russians
Father
Mother
3
12
23
7
35
20
1
8
23
6
37
25
3
5
23
1
44
25
1
4
24
0
43
28
401
455
425
461
Nevertheless more Estonian than Russian respondents has parents with only basic education.
In both ethnic groups, nearly one quarter of parents has completed general secondary
education. The share of parents with vocational education is higher among Estonians than
38
Russians. On the other hand, parents of Russian respondents have more often acquired
specialized secondary education. Fathers of Estonian respondents have not completed higher
education as often as the fathers of Russian respondents. A similar trend holds true for the
mothers of respondents. There are significant differences between Tallinn and Kohtla-Järve.
Parents of Estonian and Russian respondents have rather similar educational level in Tallinn,
but differences are quite substantial in Kohtla-Järve. In addition, in Tallinn generally more
parents have attained higher education than in Kohtla-Järve.
The educational careers of older siblings may significantly influence the motivations of
students. More than half of Estonians (55%) and almost half of Russians (48%) have older
siblings. Estonians more often have older sisters or brothers with higher education (44%) than
Russians do (29%). The siblings of Russian youth have more often attained applied higher
education, whereas siblings of Estonian youth more often have academic higher education.
The number of books in the home refers to the cultural resources in the family. Table 4.16
shows that, in general, Estonians have more books in their parental home. The gap between
Estonian and Russian youth is larger for group aged 25-36, whereas in case of younger age
group differences are not significant.
Table 4.16 Number of books in parental home, by age group
Estonians
Russians
18-25
years
26-35
years
Total
18-25
years
26-35
years
Total
0-25 books
5
5
5
4
9
6
26-50 books
12
9
10
9
11
10
51-100 books
22
16
19
22
23
22
More than 100 books
62
70
66
65
57
61
227
260
487
274
236
510
N
Parental support during studies is considered to be decisive factor for the school success of
children. TIES respondents were asked about study conditions in the home and the role of
parents and siblings during their studies in basic school. Table 4.17 shows respondents’
estimation of the importance of their family, teachers and peers while studying in basic
school. Both Estonians and Russians reported most frequently that their mother is the most
important person who helped them with their studies. The help from their father and teachers
is also considered to be quite important. In general, Estonians estimate the support from
mother, father, teachers and peers as more important than Russians. Differences between the
two cities are quite significant. Respondents from Tallinn estimated the importance of support
from family and teachers more highly than respondents from Kohtla-Järve. Particularly
Russians from Kohtla-Järve felt that support from their mother and teachers were not very
important during their studies in basic school. There are also some differences between men
and women. Russian men experienced more support from their mother and father while
studying in basic school than Russian women.
39
Table 4.17 Important persons for studies in basic school by city
Mother
Not important
Little important
Important
N
Tallinn
Estonians
Kohtla-Järve
Tallinn
Russians
Kohtla-Järve
Total
Total
6
11
83
15
20
65
10
15
75
8
15
77
23
29
48
17
23
60
257
231
488
206
302
508
16
20
64
36
23
42
25
21
54
25
19
57
36
24
40
31
22
47
221
187
408
178
270
448
34
30
36
50
22
28
41
27
33
48
17
35
52
21
27
51
20
30
212
176
388
137
236
373
13
28
59
34
31
36
23
29
48
37
29
34
38
33
29
37
31
31
251
228
479
192
299
491
9
25
66
20
27
54
14
26
60
19
20
61
31
32
37
26
27
48
257
229
486
202
302
504
Father
Not important
Little important
Important
N
Siblings
Not important
Little important
Important
N
Peers
Not important
Little important
Important
N
Teacher
Not important
Little important
Important
N
Respondents were also asked about the practical involvement of parents in their studies. Table
4.18 indicates that there are not many differences between ethnic groups in this respect. In
both ethnic groups, parents controlled the time spent on homework and helped them with their
homework. Russian women reported less often than other groups that they parents frequently
controlled their homework. On the other hand, Estonian men reported more than other groups
that parents did not help them with their homework, while Russian men got most often help
from their parents. Russians talked a bit less about their studies in the family than Estonians.
Russian women, in particular, did not discuss their studies at home as much as Estonians did.
There are no significant differences between Russians and Estonians with respect to the
amount of housework that they had to do during studies in basic school. In general, women
had to do more housework than men.
40
Table 4.18 Practical involvement of parents during the studies in basic school by sex
Parents…
Men
Estonians
Women
Total
Men
Russians
Women
Total
… controlled time spent on homework
Very often
Often
Sometimes
Not often
Never
14
34
27
19
6
13
29
30
20
8
13
30
29
20
7
19
30
30
15
7
10
25
33
23
9
13
27
32
20
9
162
322
484
158
348
506
… helped with homework
Very often
3
Often
29
Sometimes
28
Not often
30
Never
9
7
19
39
26
9
6
22
35
28
9
13
23
38
19
8
8
16
42
25
9
10
19
41
23
9
162
321
483
157
347
504
9
37
37
14
3
11
44
32
13
1
10
41
34
14
1
10
41
32
13
3
11
37
28
21
3
11
38
29
19
3
161
321
482
158
347
505
5
30
36
20
9
7
37
37
16
3
6
35
37
18
5
5
31
44
14
6
12
32
24
22
10
10
32
31
20
8
157
307
464
144
282
426
N
N
… talked about school
Very often
Often
Sometimes
Not often
Never
N
… let to do housework
Very often
Often
Sometimes
Not often
Never
N
Besides parental support and practical involvement in schooling, the study environment in the
home may be an important determinant of school success. Analysis indicates that most TIES
respondents, both Estonians and Russians, had a place in the home where they could study.
4.8 Perceived and experienced equal treatment
Table 4.19 shows Estonians’ and Russians’ opinion about the equality of opportunities in the
education system. Overall, Estonians agree more with the statement that the education system
provides equal opportunities for everyone. About one third of Russians agree with this
statement and one quarter is neutral. Still, a similar percentage of Estonians and Russians
41
perceive that opportunities are not equal in educational system (42% and 44% respectively).
Russians particularly disagree with this statement in Kohtla-Järve, where about half of
Russians feel that the education system does not provide equal opportunities.
The majority of Russians (90%) never experienced unequal treatment because of origin or
ethnicity in basic school; 5% of Russians experienced unequal treatment rarely and the rest
reported experiencing it more often. There are no significant differences between men and
women, or between age groups or cities.
Table 4.19 Agreement with statement “Estonian educational system provides equal
opportunities for everyone” by city.
Totally agree
Agree
Neutral
Do not agree
Totally disagree
N
Tallinn
Estonians
Kohtla-Järve
Tallinn
Russians
Kohtla-Järve
Total
Total
11
30
18
34
8
6
34
18
35
8
9
32
18
34
8
10
31
20
28
11
2
24
26
38
11
5
27
24
34
10
244
217
461
198
285
483
4.9 Reform in Russian schools
Russian respondents were asked their opinion about the school reform (described in section
4.2). There was no clear overall agreement about reform consequences to Russian youth
opportunities (Table 4.20). More than half of respondents rather agreed that Russian youth
competitiveness will rise in the education system and in the labour market after the reform.
Russians living in Tallinn believe more often that reform increases their opportunities, while
people from Kohtla-Järve feel that reform does not improve their possibilities to compete with
ethnic Estonians in the education system and labour market. Also, the younger age group
agreed more with this statement than respondents aged 26-35 years.
Half of Russians respondents believe that the quality of education for Russian youth will
worsen after the reform. In Tallinn, Russians most strongly agree and conversely most
strongly disagree that reform impacts the quality of education negatively. Russians aged 2635 believe more strongly that the quality of education will worsen than younger people.
About one third of Russians agreed that Russian youth will lose their cultural identity as a
consequence of educational reform. There were no significant differences between cities and
age groups.
42
Table 4.20 Russians attitude towards school reform 2007 by city and age group
KohtlaAge
Age
Total
Järve
18-25
26-35
… for Russian youth the possibilities to compete with Estonians in the education system
and labour market will improve
Exactly true
15
5
9
10
9
Moderately true
51
51
55
46
51
Hardly true
26
36
30
34
32
Not true at all
8
8
6
10
8
As a result of this reform …
Tallinn
N
295
271
230
501
… the quality of education for Russian youth will worsen
Exactly true
16
9
Moderately true
33
41
Hardly true
39
43
Not true at all
12
7
10
36
45
9
14
40
37
10
12
38
41
9
N
206
205
295
270
230
500
… Russian youth will lose their cultural identity
Exactly true
10
Moderately true
24
Hardly true
46
Not true at all
20
7
27
53
14
8
26
49
17
8
25
51
16
8
26
50
16
296
270
232
502
N
206
4.10 Conclusion
This chapter described the participation of TIES respondents in the education system and their
experiences in school. First, results indicate that there are some significant differences
between the educational careers of the two ethnic groups. Estonians tend to more often
complete general secondary and to pursue academic higher education, while for Russians it is
more common to complete vocational or professional secondary and applied higher education.
However, the most substantial difference between ethnic groups is educational attainment as a
significantly larger share of Estonians complete higher education, while Russians more often
only finish secondary education. At the same time, there were no significant differences
between Estonians and Russians school success in terms of drop-out rates from basic and
secondary school. Moreover, the share of youth who interrupt their studies in higher education
is similar for both ethnic groups. On the other hand, Estonians more often have siblings with
higher education, which may be a motivation for them to continue their studies on the tertiary
level. Still, Russians more frequently have parents with higher education and that should
encourage them to continue their studies as well. The reason why parental educational level
may not have enough motivating influence is most likely that many parents pursued higher
education outside of Estonia.
Secondly, TIES respondents in Tallinn and Kohtla-Järve received their education in highly
segregated schools, as the education system is divided into Russian and Estonian educational
institutions. The majority of Russians and Estonians did not have any or had just a few
43
classmates of the other ethnicity during their studies in basic school as well as in the
secondary school. On the level of higher education, schools are more ethnically mixed.
However, this segregation means that respondents’ experiences and opinions about school
originate from ethnically homogeneous environments. Thus, it is not surprising that the
majority of Russian respondents have never experienced unequal treatment because of their
ethnicity in basic school. Respondents also have a positive opinion about the study
environment in schools. Russians, in particular, report good relations with teachers in basic
school.
The TIES survey asked Russians to evaluate the consequences of ongoing school reform,
where the aim is to change Russian general secondary schools into bilingual schools.
Opinions about school reform were relatively controversial, younger Russians and those from
Tallinn agreed more strongly that educational reform will improve their competitiveness in
the education system and the labour market, while half of all Russian respondents believed
that the quality of education for Russian youth will decline.
References
Statistical Office Estonia (2008) www.stat.ee
Ministry of Education (2008) http://www.hm.ee/index.php?03264
44
5. Labour market
Written and prepared by Kristina Lindemann 32
This chapter gives an overview of the labour market position of young Estonians and
Russians. The aim is to describe the quality of jobs that young Estonians and Russians hold in
terms of occupational status, stability, career perspectives and satisfaction. School to work
transition experience is also focused. Both first and current employment is compared, with the
purpose of providing a preliminary outline of the development of youth working careers. The
second aim is to research ethnic segregation at the workplace. Ethnic segregation is
characteristic of the Estonian labour market since the Soviet period, which makes it
presumable that youth labour market behaviour might also be influenced by general labour
market segregation trends. The third aim is to give an overview of the experiences with
unequal treatment in the labour market and perceptions of unequal treatment. The chapter
begins with a description of the labour market situation in Tallinn and Kohtla-Järve because
the economic conditions are different in the two cities.
5.1 Labour markets in Tallinn and Kohtla-Järve
Tallinn, as the largest city in Estonia, plays a significant role in the Estonian economy. Tallinn
is an important centre for trade, communication and transportation and it has seaports and an
airport. Also many institutions of public administration are located in Tallinn. In 2007, about
69% of employed persons worked in tertiary sector of economy and 30% were employed in
secondary sector. Almost 18% of employed persons were working in manufacturing, 15 %
worked in wholesale and retail trade, nearly 12% were employed in construction, 11% in real
estate and business activities and 11% in transportation and communication (Statistical
Yearbook of Tallinn 2007). In Tallinn, the average monthly gross wage was 13% higher than
the national average in 2007. The unemployment rate was only 3.4% in 2007, which is lower
than the Estonian average. Moreover, the employment rate was 69% which is relatively high
for Estonia (Statistical Office of Estonia 2008).
Kohtla-Järve is an industrial town in Ida-Viru County. The economy of Kohtla-Järve is to a
large extent based on the extraction and processing of oil shale. The most important branch of
industry is the chemical industry. In 2000, 24% of employed people worked in manufacturing
and 16% worked in mining and quarrying (Population Census 2000). During the Soviet period
the economy in Ida-Viru County was mainly targeted towards manufacturing for all Soviet
32
Kristina Lindemann is a Phd student at the Tallinn University
45
Union not for the Estonian local segment. After the year 1991, the economy in Ida-Viru
needed substantial reorganisation, which has constrained labour market opportunities and
living standards for people in this region. In 2007, the average monthly wage was only 74%
of the Estonian average monthly wage. The unemployment rate was 9.0%, which is twice
higher than the Estonian average. The Employment rate was 57%, which is also lower than
the Estonian average (Statistical Office of Estonia 2008).
Table 5.1 shows that there are some significant differences in people’s occupational status in
Kohtla-Järve and Tallinn in 2000. More people work as managers and professionals in Tallinn
than in Kohtla-Järve. At the same time, the percentage of skilled workers is substantially
higher in Kohtla-Järve.
Table 5.1 Occupational status of employed persons in Tallinn and Kohtla-Järve
Tallinn
Kohtla-Järve
Legislators, senior officials and managers
15
9
Professionals
16
10
Technicians and associate professionals
16
13
Clerks
6
5
Service and sales workers
13
10
Skilled workers
22
40
Unskilled workers
10
11
Armed forces
1
1
178733
16672
N
Source: Population Census 2000
5.2 Current employment status of TIES respondents
Table 5.2 gives an overview of the current employment status of TIES respondents. Young
Estonians are more active in the labour market than young Russians. About one fifth of
Russian respondents are fulltime students who do not work, while the proportion of employed
students is larger among Estonians. Rather few respondents are unemployed. A similar share
of Estonians and Russians are on parental leave. Russians more often tend to be homemakers,
who take care of family.
46
Table 5.2 Current employment status
Employee (one or more jobs)
Employer with employees
Freelancer, sole proprietor
Employed student
Unemployed, looking for a job
Unemployed, not looking for a job
Student (not working, fulltime student)
Parental leave
Homemaker (I take care of children, family and home)
Incapable to work because of disability or illness
Military service
Other
N
Estonians
Russians
57
2
1
14
1
1
12
9
2
0
0
1
48
1
1
10
4
0
20
10
4
1
0
1
486
502
Table 5.3 presents the current employment status of those respondents who are active in the
labour market. In both ethnic groups, about three-quarters of respondents are employees. Not
surprisingly, there are more employees in the group aged 26-35 years, whereas the number of
working students is higher among the younger age group. Estonians in the younger age group
reported more often that they are employed students than did Russians. The percentage of
unemployed, who look actively for a job, is higher among Russians. In particular, Russians
aged 18-25 reported unemployment more often than other groups. At the same time there was
no unemployment among 26-35 years old Estonian respondents.
Table 5.3 Current employment status of respondents who are active in the labour market by
age groups
Age
18-25
60
1
1
35
3
Employee (one or more jobs)
Employer with employees
Freelancer, sole proprietor
Employed student
Unemployed, looking for a job
N
147
Estonians
Age
26-35
88
3
2
7
0
216
76
3
2
19
1
Age
18-25
60
1
1
30
8
363
139
Total
Russians
Age
26-35
87
2
2
4
4
183
Total
76
2
2
15
6
322
5.3 Transition from school to work
In Estonia, many young people enter the labour market before the end of day time studies.
Table 5.4 shows that about 36% of Estonians combined studies and working, while this share
among Russians is 28%. This shows that Estonians are in a somewhat better position after
finishing their studies, because they more often have previous work experience, which is an
advantage in labour market competition. Table 2.4 also indicates that about two-thirds of
youth continued to work in the same job after the end of day time studies in both ethnic
groups.
47
Table 5.4 Start time of first significant employment
Estonians
Russians
I started at my first job AFTER day time studies
64
72
I started at my first job BEFORE finishing day time
studies. I was working at my first job while I was
finishing my studies
25
19
I started at my first job BEFORE finishing day time
studies, but by the time I graduated I had already left my
first job
11
9
N
416
365
Table 5.5 gives an overview of the employment status of Estonian and Russian respondents
who did not have a job during their day time studies. More Russians compared with Estonians
find a job immediately after finishing their studies, whereas Estonians more often remain in
an inactive position. The percentage of youth, who are unemployed and look actively for a
job, is higher among Russians than Estonians.
Table 5.5 Employment status after finishing studies of those who did not have a job during
day time studies
I immediately found a job after
graduation/quitting studies
Unemployed, looking for a job
Unemployed, not looking for a job (e.g. on
vacation)
I did all kind of short-term odd jobs
I helped in the family business without pay
I worked in a family business for payment
Homemaker
Parental leave
Military service
N
Estonians
Russians
38
46
16
22
11
8
8
0
1
10
9
6
8
0
0
8
8
1
252
227
5.4 Occupational status in the first and current job
Respondents were asked about their first job and their current job. International SocioEconomic Index of Occupational Status (ISEI) based on ISCO-88 33 scale is used to measure
occupational status of first and current job. Those respondents who currently work on their
first job are included only into the category of first job, not into the category of current job.
Table 5.6 indicates that Estonians achieve higher occupational status on their first job than
Russians. Estonians have a higher position at their first job, and their occupational status
often increases quite significantly when comparing first and current jobs Russians
occupational status also increases somewhat, although the average status for Russians in their
current job is lower than the average status of Estonians in their first job.
33
International Standard Classification of Occupations
48
Table 5.6 Mean occupational status (ISEI) of first and current job
Estonians
Men
Women
Tallinn
Kohtla-Järve
Total
Russians
First job
Current job
First job
Current job
mean
44.2
47.3
36.1
37.8
N
136
78
117
71
mean
42.4
48.5
40.0
40.6
N
240
176
238
117
mean
42.2
44.9
39.5
42.3
N
189
127
145
86
mean
43.9
51.4
38.2
37.2
N
187
127
210
102
mean
43.1
48.1
38.7
39.5
N
376
254
355
188
Differences between the occupational status of Russian and Estonian men in their current job
is almost 10 points, which demonstrates a relatively different quality of the current jobs. In
Tallinn, Estonians achieve a somewhat higher occupational status at their first job than
Russians, although the gap between ethnic groups is not large. On the other hand, Estonians
are in significantly better position in Kohtla-Järve, where compared to Russians they achieve
a much higher occupational status at their first job and as well at their current job.
In addition to occupational status, responsibility for supervising other employees is an
important part of job status. Respondents were asked whether they are supervisors and how
many people they are responsible for at their job. Table 5.7 indicates that Estonians tend to
have somewhat more responsibility for other employees on their first job than Russians.
Among Estonians, the share of people holding supervising job increases during their working
career. In their current workplace, about one quarter of Estonians have responsibility for
supervising others, which is significantly more than on the first job. At the same time, the
share of people having supervising job does not increase among Russians.
Table 5.7 Responsibility for supervising on first and current job
Estonians
First job
Current job
Russians
First job
Current job
Not supervisor
86
74
89
87
Responsible for less than 10 employees
11
19
9
8
Responsible for 10-50 employees
2
6
1
3
Responsible for more than 50 employees
1
2
0
2
385
250
350
188
N
49
5.5 Stability of job and career opportunities
Finding a stable job that also offers career opportunities is a considerable challenge for young
people, especially in the case of first employment when youth do not have much work
experience. The type of contract under which a person works, refers to the stability of the job.
Written permanent contracts usually ensure the highest employment protection and stability
for employees, which means, that the job is rather stable. Table 5.8 indicates that young
Estonians work more often than young Russians under the written permanent contract.
Written temporary contracts generally guarantee similar employment protection as the
permanent contract; only the duration of the job is limited. On the first job, the share of
Estonians working under written temporary contract is higher compared with Russians. The
proportion of youth working under the written temporary contract in current employment is
similar in both ethnic groups.
The contract of agreement means usually temporary work and gives employee only limited
employment protection. More Russians than Estonians work under contract of agreement in
their first job and also in their current job.
A verbal contract or agreement is based only on an unwritten agreement between the
employer and the employee. That is the most unstable form of employment. On their first job
Russians more often than Estonians have only a verbal agreement or contract, while on the
current job the share of respondents who work under verbal agreements is very low among
both ethnic groups. Therefore it seems that Estonians have more stable jobs than Russians,
especially in their first job.
Table 5.8 The type of contract on the first and current job
Estonians
First job
Current job
Written permanent contract
Written temporary contract
Contract of agreement
Public Service Act
Verbal agreement/contract
N
Russians
First job
Current job
79
11
4
2
3
84
10
3
2
2
77
7
10
0
6
80
9
9
0
3
387
250
350
187
Table 5.9 gives an overview of the share of respondents who have had on-the-job training in
their first and current jobs .Generally, on the job training shows that the employer is willing to
invest in an employee, which is related to career opportunities and job stability. In general,
Estonians have had on-the-job training more often than Russians. The gap between Estonians
and Russians is quite large as three-quarters of Estonians compared with only 58% of
Russians have participated in training in their current job. There are some differences between
cities. In the first workplace, both ethnic groups had more on-the-job training in Tallinn than
in Kohtla-Järve. In the current job, the percentage of Estonians who have participated in
training is relatively higher compared with Russians in Tallinn. Still the largest gap between
ethnic groups appears in Kohtla-Järve, where 80% of Estonians and 57% of Russians have
had on-the-job training in their current job.
50
Table 5.9 On-the-job training in the first and current job by city
Did you have had on-the-job
training to improve your skills?
Estonians
First job
Current job
Russians
First job
Current job
Tallinn
… yes
… no
68
32
71
29
56
44
63
37
N
208
147
149
92
… yes
… no
61
39
80
20
51
49
57
51
N
189
119
220
108
… yes
… no
65
36
75
25
53
47
58
43
N
397
266
369
200
Kohtla-Järve
Total
Table 5.10 presents perspectives on promotion at work Estonians get promoted significantly
more often at both their first job and their current job, while Russians more often remain at
the same level. Almost none of the respondents were demoted at their job. Estonian men have
the best perspectives for getting a promotion, while Russian women are the least often
promoted compared with other groups.
Table 5.10 Perspectives for promotion on the first and current job by sex
Estonians
First job
Current job
Men
Got promoted
Stayed at the same level
Got degraded
Not relevant, short-term job
N
Women
Got promoted
Stayed at the same level
Got degraded
Not relevant, short-term job
N
Total
Got promoted
Stayed at the same level
Got degraded
Not relevant, short-term job
N
Russians
First job
Current job
35
61
1
4
42
57
0
1
29
67
0
3
31
67
0
3
130
99
119
75
27
67
0
6
36
61
0
3
20
76
0
4
23
75
0
2
268
167
249
124
29
65
1
5
38
59
0
2
23
73
0
4
26
72
0
2
398
266
368
199
51
5.6 Satisfaction with the working career
Respondents were asked to estimate the match between the education level they have attained
and their job. Estimated correspondence between level of education and job refers to the
probable subjective satisfaction with the job. Table 5.11 shows that almost a similar share of
Russians and Estonians find that their job matches their level of education. Not surprisingly,
the match between the job and the level of education is higher for the current job than for the
first job among both ethnic groups.. The comparison of cities shows that Russians have more
difficulties in finding a job to match their educational level in Tallinn, where about one
quarter of Russians find that their first job presupposed a lower level of education. In Tallinn,
Russians also find more often than Estonians that their current job does not require as high
educational level as they have achieved. In Kohtla-Järve, on the other hand, Estonians feel
more frequently than Russians that their first job presupposed a lower level of education.
Table 5.11 Correspondence between job and level of education
Estonians
First job Current job
Tallinn
Job presupposes lower level of education
Job corresponds to level of education
Job presupposes higher level of education
N
Kohtla-Järve
Job presupposes lower level of education
Job corresponds to level of education
Job presupposes higher level of education
N
Total
Job presupposes lower level of education
Job corresponds to level of education
Job presupposes higher level of education
N
Russians
First job
Current job
17
76
7
10
80
11
26
69
6
15
77
8
208
146
149
92
20
74
6
13
79
8
15
77
8
10
76
14
189
119
218
108
19
75
7
11
79
10
19
73
7
13
77
11
397
265
367
200
Table 5.12 presents respondents’ subjective satisfaction with their working career so far.
Estonians are more often satisfied with their working career and find that it has met or
exceeded their expectations, while Russians feel more often that their working career has been
more disappointing than they had hoped. Russian men are the most dissatisfied with their
career. About one third of them find that their career has been worse than they expected. Of
course, there may be differences between expectations, as men may have higher expectations
for their working career in both ethnic groups. Still it seems that young Russians are less
satisfied with their working careers than young Estonians.
52
Table 5.12 Satisfaction with the working career so far by sex
Much worse than I expected
Worse than I expected
As I expected
Better than I expected
Much better than I expected
N
Men
Estonians
Women
Total
Men
Russians
Women
Total
1
19
61
16
2
3
15
59
20
3
2
16
60
19
3
4
27
56
10
3
7
20
56
15
3
6
22
56
13
3
141
279
420
124
246
370
Table 5.13 describes the future plans of respondents who have done paid work. More
Estonians than Russians plan to continue at their current job, which also to some extent shows
their satisfaction with their job. The share of Estonians who wish to continue at their current
work is highest in Kohtla-Järve, where almost three-quarters of Estonians plan to make no job
changes. On the other hand, only one third of Russians plan to continue at the same job in
Tallinn. The percentage of Russians and Estonians who are planning to look for a more
challenging job is a rather similar. Estonians in Tallinn are the group most willing to look for
a promotion, while Estonians in Kohtla-Järve are the group least likely to seek a promotion.
In general, youth living in Kohtla-Järve are not as willing to look for a more challenging job
as youth in Tallinn. The reason for this might be the general economic situation in KohtlaJärve. Still, Estonians living in Kohtla-Järve already have quite a high occupational status,
while Russians living there have a considerably lower occupational status compared to other
groups (Table 5.6).
Table 5.13 also shows that Russians plan more often to start their own business, especially
those who are living in Tallinn. In addition, Russians are also planning more frequently than
Estonians to follow additional training or education, which also shows their motivation to
improve their satisfaction with their working career.
Table 5.13 Future plans concerning the working career of those who have done paid work by
city
Continue current work
Look for promotion/ more challenging job
Part time work / work fewer hours
Start my own business
Follow (additional) training/ education
Become full-time homemaker
Other
N
Estonians
KohtlaTallinn
Järve
45
71
38
18
3
1
5
1
5
4
1
3
3
3
227
194
Total
57
29
2
3
5
2
3
421
Russians
KohtlaTallinn
Järve
33
49
31
25
6
0
10
4
10
12
5
7
6
3
156
206
Total
42
28
3
6
11
6
5
362
53
5.7 Ethnic segregation at the workplace
There has been ethnic segregation in the Estonian labour market since the Soviet period, when
labour market policies supported its formation. It is presumable that segregation has an effect
on labour market behaviour of young people as it influences choices and opportunities of
ethnic groups. TIES respondents were asked about segregation at their workplace. Table 2.14
shows that more than half of Estonians and almost half of Russians have a current job in an
enterprise where most of their colleagues are from the same ethnicity. Compared with first
employment, both Russians and Estonians have a current job in ethnically more mixed
collectives. About one quarter of Estonians and Russians work with colleagues from both
ethnicities. In Tallinn, Russians have more often both Estonian and Russian colleagues, while
in Kohtla-Järve, a large share of Russians have only Russian colleagues. In Tallinn, Estonians
work rather seldom with Russian colleagues, but almost one third of Estonians work currently
in ethnically mixed collectives. In Kohtla-Järve, about one fifth of Estonians have only
Russian colleagues. On the other hand, the share of Estonians working in the mixed collective
is lower in Kohtla-Järve than in Tallinn.
Table 5.14 Native tongue of colleagues by city
Estonians
First job
Current job
Tallinn
Estonian for most
Russian for most
Russian and Estonian
Other language for most
N
Kohtla-Järve
Estonian for most
Russian for most
Russian and Estonian
Other language for most
N
Total
Estonian for most
Russian for most
Russian and Estonian
Other language for most
N
Russians
First job
Current job
67
8
24
1
57
10
30
3
11
51
36
2
22
35
39
4
207
146
149
92
55
22
22
1
59
19
19
4
24
58
16
1
23
59
16
3
188
119
220
109
62
15
23
1
58
14
25
4
19
55
24
2
22
48
26
4
395
265
369
201
Table 5.15 indicates that most Estonians have supervisors who are Estonian, especially at
their current job. On the other hand, more than one third of Russians also have Estonian
supervisors. In the first workplace, Russians more often have Russian supervisors than they
do at their current job.
54
Table 5.15 Ethnicity of direct supervisor
First job
Estonian
Russian
Other ethnicity
N
Estonians
Current job
Russians
First job
Current job
82
14
5
87
8
5
36
59
5
38
53
9
394
264
366
197
5.8 Discrimination experience and perceived equality of opportunities
Discrimination and perceived inequality of opportunities may be a considerable obstacle for
ethnic minorities to achieve an advantageous position in the labour market. Respondents of
the TIES survey were asked whether they have experienced hostility or unfair treatment
because of their ethnicity at the workplace and while looking for a job. Table 5.16 indicates
that the majority of Russians have never experienced unfair treatment at the work place, about
one tenth has experienced it rarely and a few have undergone discrimination more often.
Russians have experienced more hostility in Tallinn, where only three-quarters of Russians
did not report unfair treatment at the workplace because of their ethnicity. Also Russians aged
26-35 years tend to report more unfair treatment than the younger age group.
Table 5.16 Frequency of personally experienced hostility or unfair treatment because of
descent or ethnicity at the workplace, Russians, by city and age group
Never
Rarely
Occasionally
Regularly
Frequently
N
Tallinn
Kohtla-Järve
Aged 18-25 years
Aged 26-35 years
Total
75
13
9
3
0
86
8
5
1
1
85
8
5
1
1
79
12
8
1
0
81
10
7
1
0
158
218
157
219
376
Table 5.17 shows that nearly one third of Russians have rarely or more often experienced
hostility because of their ethnicity when looking for work. In Kohtla-Järve, Russians
experience less unfair treatment because of their ethnicity than in Tallinn. Russians aged 2635 years report significantly more discrimination while looking for a job than younger
Russians. Probably the youngest age group has less experience with job search. About one
quarter of Russian aged 26-35 years report that they have experienced unfair treatment
occasionally or regularly.
55
Table 5.17 Frequency of personally experienced hostility or unfair treatment because of
descent or ethnicity while looking for a job, Russians, by city and age group
Tallinn
Kohtla-Järve
Aged 18-25 years
Aged 26-35 years
Total
Never
65
75
78
58
70
Rarely
17
10
10
18
13
Occasionally
11
11
7
16
11
Regularly
5
5
5
7
5
Frequently
1
0
0
1
1
92
94
109
77
186
N
In addition to discrimination experiences, respondents’ opinion about the equality of
opportunities was asked. This question was asked from both ethnic groups, although the
formulation of question was somewhat different. The question in the Estonian version of
questionnaire was formulated in following way: ‘According to you, is it easier, the same, or
more difficult for Russians to find a good job compared Estonians with the same age and
qualifications?’ The question in the Russian version of questionnaire was asked as follows:
‘What do you think, is it easier, the same, or more difficult for you to find a good job
compared to Estonians with the same age and qualification?
Table 5.18 presents both ethnic groups’ opinion Half of Estonians and 40% of Russians
believe that opportunities are the same for both ethnicities. Russians find more often than
Estonians that Russians’ opportunities to find a job are better. It applies particularly to
Kohtla-Järve. Still, a large percentage of Estonians and Russians feel that it is more difficult
for Russians to find a job. In particular, Russians living in Tallinn find that they have fewer
opportunities to find a job compared with Estonians.
Table 5.18 Russians opportunities to find a job compared to Estonians by city
Much easier
Easier
The same
More difficult
Much more difficult
N
Tallinn
Estonians
Kohtla-Järve
Total
0
7
52
36
4
1
11
47
39
2
1
9
50
37
3
249
208
457
Tallinn
Russians
Kohtla-Järve
Total
4
8
38
44
6
2
16
42
36
4
3
12
40
39
5
202
242
444
5.9 Conclusion
The aim of this chapter was to give an overview of different aspects of the labour market
position of young Estonians and Russians. In general, Estonians more often begin their
working career while they are still studying Results show that the labour market situation of
Estonians is somewhat more advantageous, as their average occupational status is higher and
they get more responsibility for supervising. Job quality in terms of stability of work and
career perspectives differs to some extent between ethnic groups. Russians often get less
stable jobs with lower career perspectives. Their current job quality is not as high as
56
Estonians. For instance, the share of Estonians who have participated in on the job training is
significantly higher compared to Russians. Also young Estonians more often receive
promotions than Russians. In accordance, Russians are less satisfied with their working
careers and report more often that their jobs do not meet their expectations. Still, similar share
of Russians and Estonians feel that their job corresponds with their level of education even
that it requires a higher level of education. In the future, more Russians are planning to follow
additional education, while more Estonians prefer to continue in their current employment.
Results indicate that ethnic segregation at the workplace is considerable, as almost half of
Russians have mostly Russian colleagues and an even larger share of Estonians have mostly
Estonian co-workers. Some young Russians reported unequal treatment in labour market
because of their ethnicity. Russians experience more unequal treatment while looking for a
job than at their current workplace.
To sum up, it seems that Estonian respondents are somewhat more successful at the beginning
of their working career as they get jobs of a higher quality than Russian youth. Still, one
reason for Estonians’ advantage is most likely the different education levels of the two ethnic
groups.
References
Statistical Office Estonia (2008) www.stat.ee
Statistical Yearbook of Tallinn 2007 (2008). Tallinn: Tallinn City Government
http://www.tallinn.ee/est/g2677s40985
57
6. Cultural Integration and Adaptation
Written and prepared by Jennie Schulze 34
Cultural integration is defined as the process by which the behaviour and attitudes of
individuals change as they develop competence in and understanding of the language, culture,
and social mores of the dominant group in the receiving society. In this project cultural
integration is measured through language competence on the basis of group level statistics, as
well as through questions which ask respondents about their language skills and their primary
language of communication in different situations. Cultural integration has been primary focus
of acculturation studies. Acculturation is the dual process of cultural and psychological
adaptations that take place as a result of living in a multiethnic society and as a result of mutual
accommodation between groups (Berry 1997; 2005; Berry et al 2006). Cultural changes include
alterations in cultural practices and customs, while psychological changes include alterations in
individuals’ attitudes toward the acculturation process and their cultural identities (Phinney
2003). The survey measures individual attitudes towards the appropriate behaviour of Russians
in Estonian society, as well as expectations as to how the government should treat minority
issues. These issues will be analyzed in the second part of this section.
6.1 Language Proficiency
In the early 1990s, the Estonian elite set about creating an Estonian national identity on the
basis of an ethnic Estonian nation-state. Estonian elites followed the traditional nation-state
model which aims to create territorially sovereign, culturally homogenous nation-states (Csergo
2007: 31). In order to ensure that Estonia was a reflection of the ethnic majority, elites
developed policies that protected and privileged the culture of the ethnic majority, at the
expense of the large Russian-speaking minority. They did this through language, education and
citizenship policies (Brubaker 1998: 9). Based on the widespread belief that the Soviet
occupation was illegal by standards of international law, Estonian elites took a restorationist
approach to the Estonian state in which automatic citizenship was granted only to those persons
who held citizenship in 1940, while all other permanent residents were forced to naturalize. In
Estonia immigrants who wanted to naturalize were subject to a residency requirement of three
years, a language requirement, and a loyalty oath. This approach to citizenship in Estonia
rendered 40% of the resident population without citizenship. Non-citizens were excluded from
political parties and were not allowed to participate in national elections. They were allowed to
34
Jennie Schulze is a PhD Candidate at The George Washington University, Washington DC. [email protected]
58
vote in local elections but were not allowed to run for office (Kelley 2004:122). In addition, the
language requirement deterred many non-Estonians from gaining citizenship. 35 Consequently,
several authors have noted the difficulties of trying to separate language and citizenship
policies in Estonia.
The basis of Estonian national identity is centred upon the importance of the Estonian
language. The goal of protecting the Estonian language was clearly stated by elites in both the
Constitution and in the 1989 Estonian Language Act. “Belonging” to the Estonian nation
requires proficiency in the Estonian language. In addition to making proficiency in the Estonian
language a requirement for citizenship, different levels of proficiency are required to hold
certain jobs in Estonian society and this proficiency is monitored by the Language Inspectorate.
While regulation of language in the private economic sphere is not condoned by the
international community, by Estonian law the government may do so where it is in the
“justified public interest”. In addition, school reform of secondary education went into effect in
2007, which requires Russian minority schools to transition to teaching 60% of subjects in the
Estonian language. In 1993, Estonia passed Law on Basic and Upper-Secondary Schools which
required medium of instruction at the secondary levels (Grades 10-12) in state and municipal
schools to shift from Russian to Estonian. The law permits language of instruction in basic
education to be a language other than Estonian, however amendments to the law delayed
transition from Russian to Estonian until 2007 (Kemppainen and Ferrin 2002: 81).
Discussions surrounding possible membership in NATO and EU brought with them attention to
the need to integrate the Russian minority and pressure was placed on Estonia to make
citizenship and language laws compatible with international standards. This pressure did lead to
changes in citizenship and language laws in the late 1990s. However, the willingness to learn
the Estonian language on the part of ethnic Russians continues to be the primary mechanism for
bringing Russians into the same “imagined community” on the part of ethnic Estonians and this
mechanism is given priority in the Estonian State Integration Program (Petersoo 2007: 125
citing Lauristin and Vihalemm 1997: 282). The Integration Program (2000-2007) envisioned
integration occurring on the basis of the Estonian language and arguably, the newly launched
Integration Program 2008-2013 still views proficiency in the Estonian language as the central
component of integration and the key to better relations between the ethnic Estonian and
Russian communities. A careful reading of the new program and attention to where money is
allocated reveals that language remains the primary concern of the new program.
While many researchers agree that a certain level of linguistic assimilation is necessary for
integration along other dimensions, linguistic assimilation does not necessarily lead to
integration. Regular integration monitoring has found a strong association between language
proficiency and citizenship in Estonian society. What has been studied far less is how language
capabilities have affected socio-economic integration as well as identity integration. Latin
(1998) argued that language shift among Russian respondents was evidence of an identity shift
among this group. The TIES survey permits an examination of the ways in which Estonian
35
Chin and Kaiser 1996: 103. An operational level of language competence for citizenship is defined as the ability
to use 1500 words for everyday conversation, the ability to understand the news, read short texts, and know some
Estonian history and geography. Given that only 13.7% of Russians in 1989 could speak Estonian fluently, and
given the difficulty of the language, this is a significant hurdle for Russians desiring citizenship.
59
language proficiency or cultural integration is related to other dimensions of integration
(structural, identity, social) and will be an important question to be tackled later in academic
articles. The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of language proficiencies and
language choices among Russian and Estonian respondents. The ability to communicate is
necessarily prior to the ability to interact meaningfully on a social level, and consequently,
language proficiency and choices have a strong impact on other dimensions of integration.
6.1.1 Mother Tongue
As was expected, most ethnic Estonians were raised in the Estonian language and most
Russians were raised in the Russian language. Responses did not vary significantly by age
group, place of residence or sex. Table 6.1 represents the breakdown of those respondents that
were raised in Estonian by ethnicity.
Table 6.1 What Language were you Raised In?
Tallinn
Estonian
Russian
Kohtla-Järve
Estonian
Russian
Yes
No
Total N
99.2
8.2
0.8
91.8
255
207
96.9
13.1
3.1
86.9
224
305
The following Table 6.2 shows a breakdown of those Russian respondents that were raised in
Russian.
Table 6.2 Percentage of Russian Respondents Raised in Russian by City
Tallinn
Kohtla-Järve
Yes
No
Total N
98.6
91.8
1.4
8.2
207
305
Table 6.3 shows the breakdown of respondents that were raised in another language. For
Russian respondents this would mean a language other than Estonian or Russian, however for
Estonian respondents this would be any language other than Estonian (including Russian).
Among the other languages mentioned by Russian respondents were Ukrainian and Latvian.
However, the only named other language among Estonian respondents was Russian.
Table 6.3 Percentage of Respondents Raised in another Language by Ethnicity
Estonian
Russian
Yes
Not Mentioned
Total N
8.8
2.3
91.2
97.7
487
512
60
6.1.2 Self-Evaluation of Estonian Language Proficiency by Russian Respondents
The 2005 Integration Monitoring asked Russians to evaluate their own Estonian language
proficiency along four dimensions: 1) understanding verbal speech; 2) reading proficiency; 3)
writing proficiency; and 4) ability to converse. Using the ability to converse as evidence of
“active language proficiency”, the 2005 Integration Monitoring found that there were three
clearly distinguishable groups among Estonian Russians: 43% of the Russian speaking
population was found to have active language proficiency (capable of conversing “well” or
“average”); 33% with uncertain proficiency in conversation (converse “a little”); and 25%
were monolingual. However the results were a good deal more positive among young people
aged (15-29): 59% were found to have and active language proficiency; 27% had uncertain
proficiency; and only 14% were monolingual. 36
The results of the TIES survey shows a positive picture of how second generation Russians
evaluate their Estonian language proficiency. It is difficult to compare directly with the results
of Integration Monitoring in Estonia. While the question was phrased in a similar way, the
scale for responses was very different. In the Integration Monitoring 2005 and 2008, the
question was phrased, “How good is your Estonian in the sense of understanding oral speech,
reading, communicating and writing” however the scale offered was (well, moderately, a bit,
and not at all). The scale offered in the TIES survey has many more categories which raises the
question of how to interpret the results in comparison with previous monitoring. Does “good”
mean “good” or was it treated by respondents as the midpoint of the scale. A follow-up
qualitative study of Estonian language proficiency among these respondents might be necessary
in order to interpret the responses to this question and to make meaningful comparisons with
previous research. Table 6.4 illustrate the self-evaluations of Russians according to their
abilities to understand Estonian, communicate in Estonian, read Estonian and write Estonian.
The self-evaluations of second generation Russians with respect to their Estonian language
capabilities appear to be very positive. The ability to “understand Estonian” and to
“communicate in Estonian” corresponds most closely to the concept of “active language
proficiency” in the 2005 Integration Monitoring. While the difference in scales makes a direct
comparison problematic, for the purpose of this report active language proficiency will be taken
to mean those who ranked their skills as good or better. Almost 68 % of those surveyed
evaluate their understanding of Estonian and 72% evaluate their ability to read Estonian as
good or better. Fifty-seven percent evaluate their ability to communicate in Estonian as good or
better while 62% evaluate the ability write in Estonian as good or better. What is especially
significant about these results is that a very small percentage of Russian respondents rated their
Estonian language skills as bad or very bad.
36
Ivi Proos, “Language Proficiency Among Estonian Russians and their Attitudes toward Gymnasium Reform in
2007,” Chapter 2 of Monitoring Integration Study Report, 2005.
61
Table 6.4 Self Evaluations of Estonian Language Proficiency among Russian Respondents
Understanding
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Moderate
Bad
Very Bad
N
Communication
Reading
Writing
10.6
19.6
37.3
24.5
6.7
1.4
8.2
13.7
34.9
31.4
8.6
3.1
13.1
17.8
41
20
6.7
1.4
8.6
15.7
37.5
26.9
8
3.3
510
510
510
510
6.1.3 Citizenship and Language Proficiency
Integration Monitoring in 2005 found citizenship to be the best predictor of language
capabilities. According to the study of 2005, the language proficiency of 71% of Estonian
Russians with Estonian citizenship was active (I converse well or average) compared with
only 62% in 1997. The proficiency of 17% (23% in 1997) was uncertain and 12% (15% in
1997) were monolingual. The Estonian language proficiency of Russian speakers with
Estonian citizenship is therefore continually improving. 37 The trend is even more positive
among young people (up to 29 years of age). Among this age group, 83% of those with
Estonian citizenship had active language proficiency in 2005; 12% had uncertain proficiency
and only 5% were monolingual.
According to the 2005 survey, only 25% (23% in 1997) of Russian speakers with
undetermined citizenship had active language proficiency: 49% (40% in 1997) were
uncertain; and 26% (37% in 1997) were monolingual. It is positive that the prevalence of
monolingual people in the group of Estonian Russians with undetermined citizenship has
decreased significantly in the past eight years from 37% in 1997 to 26% in 2005. However,
among those with undetermined citizenship, young people were found to have better Estonian
language proficiency than older people. Thirty-seven percent (including 6% with “good”
language proficiency) of young people with undetermined citizenship were judged to have an
active language proficiency in 2005. According to their own appraisals, 79% of young people
with undetermined citizenship would like to acquire Estonian citizenship (on average, 73% of
Estonian Russians with undetermined citizenship would like to acquire Estonian citizenship).
Thus the motive for applying for citizenship exists and is highest among young people. For
the sake of comparison, in 2005, 12% of young Estonian Russians with undetermined
citizenship want Russian citizenship and 15% want to become citizens of some other country.
The trend was found to be most negative among those with Russian citizenship. According to
data from the 2005 monitoring, only 5% of Russian citizens living in Estonia had active
language proficiency (23% in 1997 and 16% in 2002); 44% (3% in 1997) had uncertain
proficiency; and 51% (40% in 1997) of Russian citizens were monolingual. The relative
proportion of young people with Russian citizenship is small (11% of young people up to 29
37
Ivi Proos, “Language Proficiency Among Estonian Russians and their Attitudes toward Gymnasium Reform in
2007,” Chapter 2 of Monitoring Integration Study Report, 2005.
62
years of age), and therefore sociological studies carried out using the standard random sample
(about 1000 respondents) did not make it possible to analyse further this social group in the
2005 integration monitoring.
According to the results of the TIES survey, citizenship remains an important predictor of
language capabilities. As the following table shows, those respondents who have Estonian
citizenship rate their proficiency in Estonian significantly higher than those with Russian
citizenship, other citizenship, or no citizenship. Of those with Estonian citizenship, 82.9% rate
their ability to understand Estonian as good or better. Only 45.1% of those with Russian
citizenship and 42.7% of those with undetermined citizenship appraise their ability to
understand Estonian in the as good or better. 38 In terms of the ability to communicate in
Estonian, 71.4% of Estonian citizens, 35.3% of Russian citizens, and 35.4% of those with
undetermined citizenship rated their ability to communicate in Estonian as good or better. The
TIES survey also asked ethnic Russian respondents to rate their proficiency in reading and
writing Estonian. The relationships between citizenship and the ability to read and write
Estonian were also significant, however the size of the effects were smaller than in the case of
understanding and communicating. With respect to reading 82.2% of Estonian citizens, 36.8%
of Russian citizens and 55.9% of those with undetermined citizenship rated their abilities as
good or better. In the case of writing, 73.7% of Estonian citizens, 47.1% of Russian citizens,
and only 30.7% of those with undetermined citizenship rated their ability to write Estonian as
good or better.
Table 6.5 Self-Evaluation of Estonian Proficiency among Russians by Citizenship
Estonian
Understanding
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Moderate
Bad
Very Bad
Total N
Communicating
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Moderate
Bad
Very Bad
Total N
Russian
Undetermined
Other
Total %
16.4
25.9
40.6
10.9
4.1
2.0
293
3.9
5.9
35.3
47.1
7.8
0.0
51
2.0
12.0
28.7
45.3
11.3
0.7
150
7.7
23.1
61.5
7.7
0.0
0.0
13
10.7
19.7
37.1
24.7
6.5
1.4
507
13.7
18.1
39.6
20.8
4.8
3.1
293
0.0
5.9
29.4
51.0
13.7
0.0
51
0.7
8.7
26.0
46.7
14.0
4.0
150
7.7
7.7
53.8
15.4
7.7
7.7
13
8.3
13.8
34.9
31.4
8.5
3.2
507
38
92.3% of those with “other” citizenship appraise their ability to understand Estonian as good or better,
however they comprise a very small portion of the data-set, only 2.6% (n=13) and therefore this number cannot
be considered a realistic appraisal of the skills of this category of people. 69.2% rated their ability to
communicate in Estonian as good or better; 84. 6% and 77% rated their ability to read and write Estonian as
good or better.
63
Table 6.5 (Continues): Self-Evaluation of Estonian Proficiency among Russians by Citizenship
Estonian
Reading
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Moderate
Bad
Very Bad
Total N
Writing
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Moderate
Bad
Very Bad
Total N
Russian
Undetermined
Other
Total %
18.4
21.5
42.7
12.6
3.8
1.0
293
5.9
11.8
39.2
31.4
11.8
0.0
51
5.3
13.3
37.3
30.7
10.7
2.7
150
15.4
15.4
53.8
15.4
0.0
0.0
13
13.2
17.9
41.0
19.9
6.5
1.4
507
14.0
17.7
42.0
19.8
3.1
3.4
293
2.0
9.8
35.3
37.3
11.8
3.9
51
0.7
13.3
29.3
36.7
16.7
3.3
150
7.7
23.1
46.2
23.1
0.0
0.0
13
8.7
15.8
37.7
26.6
7.9
3.4
507
Integration Monitoring in 2005 found that place of residence had a significant impact on
Estonian language proficiency among Russians. In Tallinn 70% of young Russians (up to
29yrs) had active Estonian language proficiency compared with 22% of young people in Narva.
The results of the TIES survey show that there is no significant association between place of
residence and the ability to communicate in Estonian. Place of residence was only associated
with the ability of respondents to understand Estonian: 78.7% of Russians in Tallinn compared
with 59.7% in Kohtla-Järve rated their proficiency in understanding Estonian as good or better.
The associations between city and the ability to communicate, read and write in Estonian were
non-significant. This may be due to the fact that the Integration Monitoring 2005 focused on
Narva, while the TIES survey drew respondents from Kohtla-Järve. Proficiency in ability to
communicate among Russians in Tallinn is roughly consistent with the findings of the 2005
Integration Monitoring: 63.4% rate their ability as good or better, and 93.3% rate their skills as
moderate or better.
Figure 6.1 - How well do you understand Estonian? Russian Respondents
37,237,3
Procentages
40
29,4
30
20
25,6
15,9
17,4
15,5
9,9
10
6,9
1,9
1,9 1
0
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Moderate
Bad
Very Bad
Response categories
Tallinn (N=207)
Kohtla-Järve (N=303)
64
The only significant associations between age group and language proficiency among Russian
respondents are with respect to the ability to read and write in Estonian: 81.1% of the 18-25 yr
old age group rates their abilities to read Estonian as good or better compared with only 62.6%
in the 26-35 yr old age group; 71.5% of 18-25 yr olds rate their ability to write Estonian as
good or better compared with only 51.8% of the 26-35 yr olds.
6.1.4 Self-Evaluation of Russian Language Proficiency by Estonian and Russian
Respondents
In addition to asking about Estonian language proficiency among Russian respondents, the
TIES survey also asked about Russian language proficiency among both Estonian and Russian
respondents. All respondents were asked to rate their proficiency in the Russian language in
terms of understanding, communicating, reading and writing. Place of residence had a sizeable
effect on responses to this question among both Russian and Estonian respondents as Table 6.7
shows. There is a marked difference between Estonians who live in Kohtla-Järve and those
who live in Tallinn. On the whole Estonians who live in Kohtla-Järve rate their proficiency in
Russian across all four areas as better than Estonian respondents who live in Tallinn. 86.9%
and 61.1% of Estonians rate their ability to understand Russian as good or better. With respect
to communicating in Russian, 84.9% of Estonians in Kohtla-Järve compared with only 50% in
Tallinn rate their ability to communicate in Russian as good or better. In terms of proficiency
in reading and writing Russian among Estonian respondents, (77% and 46.9%) and (63.9% and
29%) rated their skills as good or better.
The association between place of residence and Russian language proficiency among Russian
respondents was also significant across the four areas of language skills, however in contrast to
the trend among Estonian respondents Russians in Tallinn rate their Russian language
proficiency as better than those Russian respondents in Kohtla- Järve. While 99% of Russian
respondents in both cities rated their ability to understand Russian as good or better, in Tallinn
a significantly higher number rated their skills as excellent (84.5%; 57.9%). Similar trends
exist in relation to communication skills (84%; 58.3%), reading skills (82.5%; 57.6%), and
writing skills (78.2%; 54.3%).
Table 6.7 Self-Evaluation of Russian Proficiency among Estonians and Russians by City
Tallinn
Understanding
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Moderate
Bad
Very Bad
Total N
9.3
17.1
35.8
26.8
7.8
3.1
257
Estonians
Kohtla-Järve
41.1
24.2
21.6
10.0
2.2
0.9
231
Tallinn
84.5
14.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
207
Russians
Kohtla-Järve
57.9
21.9
19.2
1.0
0.0
0.0
302
65
Table 6.7 (Continues) Self-Evaluation of Russian Proficiency among Estonians and Russians
by City
Tallinn
Communicating
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Moderate
Bad
Very Bad
Total N
Reading
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Moderate
Bad
Very Bad
Total N
Writing
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Moderate
Bad
Very Bad
Total N
Estonians
Kohtla-Järve
Tallinn
Russians
Kohtla-Järve
7.4
12.9
29.7
31.6
13.7
4.7
256
34.2
26.0
24.7
10.4
3.0
1.7
231
84.0
14.1
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
206
58.3
21.2
19.9
0.7
0.0
0.0
302
6.3
8.6
32.0
26.6
17.2
9.4
256
28.3
21.7
27.0
16.5
3.9
2.6
230
82.5
14.1
2.4
0.5
0.0
0.5
206
57.6
20.9
21.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
302
4.7
4.3
20.3
33.6
20.3
16.8
256
25.2
15.7
23.0
25.2
5.2
5.7
230
78.2
14.6
5.3
1.0
0.5
0.5
206
54.3
21.9
22.2
1.7
0.0
0.0
302
While age group had no impact on evaluations of Russian language proficiency among
Russian respondents, age group was significant for Estonian respondents with respect to the
ability to understand Russian and to communicate in Russian.
Table 6.8 Self-Evaluation of Russian Proficiency among Estonians by Age Group
18-25 yr old
Understanding
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Moderate
Bad
Very Bad
Total N
Communicating
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Moderate
Bad
Very Bad
Total N
26-35 yr old
Total % (All Est)
18.3
16.4
26.8
27.2
7.5
3.8
213
29.1
23.6
30.9
12.4
3.3
0.7
275
24.4
20.5
29.1
18.9
5.1
2.0
488
16.0
15.5
21.1
30.0
117
5.6
213
23.4
21.9
32.1
15.0
6.2
1.5
274
20.1
19.1
27.3
21.6
8.6
3.3
487
66
As Table 6.8 shows, 83.6% of the 26-35 yr old age group rated their ability to understand
Russian as good or better compared with 61.5% in the 18-25 yr old group. Similarly, 77.4% of
the older age group compared with 52.6% in the younger group rated their ability to
communicate in Russian as good or better.
6.1.5 Attitudes toward Languages among Russian Respondents
One of the goals of Estonian Integration Strategy has been to cultivate a positive attitude
toward learning the Estonian language. One explanation for the high evaluation of Estonian
language proficiency among Russian respondents in the TIES survey may have to do with the
positive evaluation of the Estonian language by these respondents: 87.8% of Russian
respondents indicated that it was important to know both Russian and Estonian well. Only
5.5% thought it was important to know only Russian and only 2.6% thought that neither
language was important. There were no significant associations between place of residence or
age group and attitudes toward language. In addition, 65.7% of Russian respondents disagreed
with the statement that “learning Estonian makes one distant from Russian culture”. There is,
however an association between sex and attitudes toward language, however the size of the
effect is relatively small. Females were more likely to feel that knowing only Estonian was
important, and males were more likely to feel that knowing only Russian was important.
6.1.6 Language Choice among Russian Respondents
Despite the relatively high assessments of Estonian language proficiency and the positive
attitudes toward the Estonian language among Russian respondents, the TIES survey does
indicate that Russian respondents are more likely to use Russian in certain situations.
Respondents indicated that they were most likely to use Russian in personal situations, with
family, friends, partners and doctors. A larger proportion of Russian respondents indicated that
they use at least some Estonian with colleagues and when interacting with government
officials.
Family Relations
When communicating and interacting with family members, on the whole Russian
respondents were more likely to speak Russian than Estonian. Of those respondents with
siblings, 29.1% of respondents indicated that they use more Russian than Estonian and 68.7%
indicated that they use mostly Russian. When communicating and interacting with parents,
28.3% of those with parents indicated that they use more Russian than Estonian and 70.3%
indicated that they use mostly Russian.
There is a significant association between place of residence and language use with family
members as is shown in Table 6.9 When talking to brothers and sisters 88.7% of Russian
respondents in Tallinn indicated that they use mostly Russian compared with 57.5% in KohtlaJärve. In addition, more respondents in Kohtla-Järve indicated that they used more Russian
than Estonian than did respondents in Tallinn. A similar trend is visible among
communication with parents across the two cities. In Tallinn, 86.8% indicated that they use
mostly Russian and 11.8% indicated that they used more Russian than Estonian compared
67
with 58.5% and 40.1% in Kohtla-Järve. This indicates that more respondents in Kohtla-Järve
than in Tallinn are at least using some Estonian with their family members.
Table 6.9 Which languages do you use when communicating with your brother(s) and
sister(s)/ parents?
Mostly
Estonian
More
Estonian
than Russian
More
Russian
than Estonian
0.0
0.4
0.7
2.6
10.6
39.6
88.7
57.5
151
268
1.0
0.4
0.5
1.1
11.8
40.1
86.8
58.5
204
284
Siblings
Tallinn
Kohtla-Järve
Parents
Tallinn
Kohtla-Järve
Mostly
Russian
Total N
Friends
Among those respondents who answered the question about language choice with friends,
32.7% indicated that they use more Russian than Estonian and 59.2% indicated that they use
mostly Russian. Only 7.2% of these Russian respondents indicated that they use more
Estonian than Russian, and less than one percent indicated that they use mostly Estonian.
Unlike the case with language choice among family members there is no association between
language preference and place of residence. The fact that Russian respondents are more likely
to use Russian when speaking with friends is due to the fact that the majority of respondents
indicated that they have mostly Russian friends.
Current/Last Partner
When communicating with current or last partners, 24.9% indicated that they use more
Russian than Estonian and 31.1% indicated that they use mostly Russian. As was the case of
language choice with family members, place of residence is associated with language choice
when talking to partners. In Tallinn, 84.5% of those respondents indicated that they use mostly
Russian compared with 61.8% in Kohtla-Järve. Thirty-four percent of respondents in KohtlaJärve indicated that they use more Russian than Estonian, which once again implies that
respondents in Kohtla-Järve are using at least some Estonian.
Table 6.10 Which languages do you use when communicating with your current/last partner
or your husband/wife?
Tallinn
Kohtla-Järve
Mostly
Estonian
2.8
0.0
More Estonian
than Russian
0.7
3.4
More
Russian
than Estonian
11.3
34.3
Mostly
Russian
84.5
61.8
Total N
142
204
There was also a significant association between sex and language choice with partners among
Russian respondents: 90.2% of males indicated that they used mostly Russian compared with
64.2% of females. Only 8.7% of males indicated that they use more Russian than Estonian
compared with 30.7% of females.
68
Doctor
In situations with their doctor, Russian respondents were more likely to use Russian. 52.3% of
all respondents who answered this question indicated that they speak mostly Russian and
35.2% that they speak more Russian than Estonian. 11.9% of respondents indicated that they
spoke mostly Estonian or more Estonian than Russian. Place of residence was significant with
more respondents in Tallinn indicating that they speak Estonian with their doctors than
respondents in Kohtla-Järve.
Table 6.11 Which languages do you use when communicating with your doctor?
Tallinn
Kohtla-Järve
Mostly
Estonian
8.3
0.7
More
Estonian
than Russian
15.0
3.3
More
Russian
than Estonian
24.8
42.5
Mostly
Russian
51.5
52.8
Total N
206
299
Colleagues and Schoolmates
In what might be considered more professional situations, interactions with schoolmates and
with colleagues, more Russian respondents indicated that they used the Estonian. Of the 380
respondents who answered the question about language choice with colleagues, 43.7%
indicated that they used mostly Estonian, 27.4% that they used more Russian than Estonian,
and 23. 4% indicted that they used more Estonian than Russian. There was a significant
association between place of residence and language choice with colleagues. Respondents in
Tallinn indicated that they were more likely to use Estonian. Most likely owing to labor
market differences in the two regions.
Table 6.12 Which languages do you use when communicating with colleagues?
Tallinn
Kohtla-Järve
Mostly
Estonian
10.8
0.5
More
Estonian
than Russian
19.0
26.6
More
Russian
than Estonian
28.5
26.6
Mostly
Russian
41.8
45.0
Total N
158
222
Language choice among schoolmates paints a slightly different picture from language choice
among colleagues. The majority of respondents indicated that they used mostly Russian
(60.9%) with 24.8% indicating that they use more Russian than Estonian. However, 13.4%
indicated that they use more Estonian than Russian or mostly Estonian when talking to
schoolmates which is higher than the percentage than in situations with family, friends, and
partners.
Government Officials
As with colleagues and schoolmates Russian respondents are more likely to use Estonian
when speaking with government officials. Of those respondents 28.6% indicated that they
speak mostly Russian, 34.9% more Russian than Estonian, 26.1% more Estonian than Russian
and 9.7% mostly Estonian. Not surprisingly place of residence was significant for responses
to this question. According to Estonian law, minorities are allowed to correspond with
government and municipal authorities in their native language where minorities are present in
69
substantial numbers (more than 50%). The results of the survey support this demographic
difference. Table 6.14 indicates that 57.3% Russian respondents in Tallinn indicated that they
use mostly Estonian or more Estonian than Russian, whereas 78.1% of respondents in KohtlaJärve indicated that they use more Russian than Estonian or mostly Russian.
Table 6.13 Which languages do you use when communicating with government officials?
Mostly
Estonian
Tallinn
Kohtla-Järve
More
Estonian
than Russian
More
Russian
than Estonian
38.5
17.7
20.8
44.5
18.8
3.5
Mostly
Russian
Total N
192
283
21.4
33.6
6.1.6 English Language Proficiency among Estonian and Russian Respondents
In addition to Estonian and Russian skills, all respondents were asked to rate their language
skills in English. On the whole, Estonian respondents rated their English skills more positively
than Russian respondents. 70.9% of Estonian respondents rate their English skills as good or
better compared with only 40.1% of Russian respondents.
Figure 6.2 How well do you know the English language?
38,1
Procentages
40
27,4
30
19,3
20
10
27
23,4
16,6
16,2
9,4
8,8
6,6
3,9
3,3
0
Excellent Very Good
Good
Moderate
Bad
Very Bad
Response categories
Estonians (N=488)
Russians (N=511)
Place of residence was also significant with respondents in Tallinn rating their skills as better
than those in Kohtla-Järve. In Tallinn 10.6% of respondents rated their skills as excellent and
23.7% as very good compared with 3.2% and 9.2% respectively in Kohtla-Järve. Age-group
was also significant with the younger age group assessing their English language skills more
positively than the older age group.
70
Figure 6.3 How well do you know the English language?
Procentages
40
34,3
31,2
27,1
30
23,7
18,8
20
15,5
10,6
9,2
10
6,9
3,2
13,8
5,8
0
Excellent Very Good
Good
Moderate
Bad
Very Bad
Response categories
Tallinn (N=464)
Kohtla-Järve (N=535)
6.2 Cultural Threat and Cultural Adaptation
Many scholars across the transatlantic region have attempted to reconceptualize “integration
and “assimilation” in order to show that they are qualitatively different processes. This attempt
at redefinition is as much the result of the normative push away from “assimilation” in
Europe, as the desire for theoretical clarity (Alba and Nee 1997; Glazer 1993:122; Mollenkopf
1999). The concept of assimilation in Europe has often been co-opted by both the media and
activists who have portrayed it as a discriminatory process. As in other European countries,
“assimilation” in Estonia is understood by the Russian minority as the process of making them
“more Estonian” and by implication “less Russian” and it is therefore viewed as a tool for
ensuring the dominance of the ethnic majority culture. The Estonian government adopted the
distinction between “assimilation” and “integration” and the Integration Program (2000-2007)
and the Integration Program (2008-2013) explicitly state the aim of government policies to be
“integration”. The TIES survey asks both ethnic Estonians and ethnic Russians their view of
whether Russians should adapt more to Estonian culture or whether they should maintain their
cultural distinctiveness.
Ethnic Estonians and ethnic Russians were asked a number of different questions regarding
whether or not they felt that there was any threat to their own culture or language. As Figure
6.4 shows, approximately the same number of Estonian respondents felt that cultural diversity
is a threat to Estonian language of culture (39.7%) than did not (38.4%).
71
Figure 6.4 The fact there are a lot of people
of different ethnic and cultural origins living
in Estonia is no danger at all to the Estonian
culture or language.
32,2
30
25
33,3
35
27,2
29,2
30
22
20
11,2
7,5
10
5
Procentages
Procentage
35
15
Figure 6.5 We should take steps to
protect our culture from the influence
of the Russian language and culture.
25
20
18,1
15,2
15
10
4,2
5
0
0
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither Disagree Strongly
Agree
Disagree
nor
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Response categories
Agree
Neither Disagree Strongly
Agree
Disagree
nor
Disagree
Response categories
Estonians N=480
Estonians(N=482)
However when asked specifically if Estonian culture should be protected from the influence of
Russian language and culture many more Estonian respondents (51.4%) indicated that
Estonian culture should be protected than did not (19.4%).
By contrast, when asked whether Russian culture was at risk in Estonia, 44% of Russian
respondents felt that Russian culture was at risk compared with 36.6% who did not (Figure
6.6). Thus while Russians are less threatened than Estonians by the presence of cultural
diversity, a significant number of both Russians and Estonians feel that their own culture is
threatened in Estonia. When asked whether there was room for a variety of languages and
cultures in Estonia, the majority of Russian respondents (62.8%) agreed compared with 18.6%
who disagreed.
Figure 6.7 There is room for a variety
of languages and cultures in Estonia
50
50
40
40
32,2
28,5
30
19,4
20
11,8
8,1
10
Procentages
Procentages
Figure 6.6 Maintaining Russian Culture in
Estonia is at Risk
41,8
30
21
18,6
20
15,8
10
2,8
0
0
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither Disagree Strongly
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
Response categories
Russians (N=509)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither Disagree Strongly
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
Response categories
Russians (N=505)
72
The largest group of Estonian respondents (47.4%) disagreed with statement “It would be best
for Estonia if all the Russians living here would forget their own ethnic culture as soon as
possible and adapt to Estonian culture” with 21.3% agreeing and 30.5% expressing
indifference. When asked to respond to the statement “I don't feel any pressure to give up
Russian culture and replace it with Estonian” 42.8% of Russian respondents agreed with the
statement, with 30.5% disagreeing and 26.8% expressing indifference. In addition both
Estonians and Russians were asked about the appropriate behavior of non-Estonians both at
home and outside the home.
Figure 6.8 At home and in private life, non-Estonians should live as much as possible in
accordance with Estonian cultural customs and norms.
50
39,4
Procentages
40
42,3
32
30
21,9
20
10
18,1
14,9
16,9
8,4
4
2,1
0
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Response categories
Estonians (N=487)
Russians (N=503)
While the largest category of Estonians and Russians were indifferent to whether non-Estonians
should adopt Estonian culture and norms inside the home, more Estonians (40.4%) than Russians
(18.9%) agreed with the statement. When asked how non-Estonians should behave outside the
home, the majority of Estonians (66.9%) felt that they should behave in accordance with Estonian
cultural customs and norms, compared with (29.2%) of Russians. The largest group of Russian
respondents was unsure of how to respond to this question (43.5%). When asked to respond to
the statement “At home and in private life, non-Estonians should live as much as possible in
accordance with the cultural customs and norms of their parents' native country” Estonian and
Russian respondents had similar viewpoints. The majority of Russian respondents (51.3%) and
the largest group of Estonian respondents (46%) agreed with this statement with 12.9% and
16.9% respectively disagreeing
Figure 6.9 Outside the home, non-Estonians should live as much as possible in
accordance with Estonian cultural customs and norms.
60
52,5
Procentages
50
43,5
40
30
23,4
20
24,9
16
14,4
11,4
6,8
5,8
10
1,4
0
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Response categories
Estonians (N=486)
Russians (N=501)
When asked to respond to the statement “Outside the home, non-Estonians should live in
accordance with the cultural customs and norms of their parents' native country” Russian
respondents gave very similar answers to the above statement (30.7% agreeing; 46.7%
indifferent; and 22.7% disagreeing). Thus both groups of respondents feel that in private life
non-Estonians should follow their own cultural customs and norms however outside of the home
the majority of Estonian respondents feel that non-Estonians should follow Estonian cultural
customs and practices. This viewpoint, at least among Estonians, demonstrates support for the
Estonian integration program which makes this distinction between private and public life.
The vast majority of Estonians (88.6%) however, expressed the opinion that non-Estonians
should make more of an effort to adapt to Estonian society. While many more Russian (28.2%)
than Estonian respondents (2%) disagreed with this notion, the majority of Russian respondents
(56.3%) agreed that non-Estonians should make more of an effort to adapt to Estonian society.
Figure 6.10 Non-Estonians should make more of an effort to adapt to Estonian society
60
50,7
Procentages
50
40
37,9 39
30
23,1
17,3
20
15,4
9,3
10
1,6
5,1
0,4
0
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Response categories
Estonians (N=485)
Russians (N=467)
80
Both Estonian and Russian respondents were also asked questions about what the government
should do about interethnic relations in Estonia and differences between the responses of ethnic
Estonians and ethnic Russians were significant: 70.4% of Russians agree or strongly agree that
the government should do more to improve the position of non-Estonians compared with 43.4%
of Estonians. The largest group of Estonians are those that are indifferent to the statement
(33.5%).
Percentages
Figure 6.11 The government should do more to improve the position of non-Estonians in
Estonian society
40
35
30
35,2
32,9
35,2
33,5
21,4
25
20
15
10
5
0
17,1
17,9
10,5
9,1
5,1
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Response categories
Estonians(N=486)
Russians (N=503)
Despite the threat from Russian culture, 45% of Estonian respondents either strongly
agree or agree that the government should promote ethnic minorities’ languages and
cultures with 21.1% either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing (Figure 6.12). 81.9% of
Russian respondents either strongly agree or agree with this statement.
Figure 6.12 The government should promote the ethnic minorities languages and cultures
in Estonia
60
54,3
Percentages
50
40
31,2
30
20
33,9
27,6
13,8
12,9
10
16,6
4,4
4,5
0,8
0
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neigher
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Response categories
Estonians (N= 487)
Russians (N=503)
81
6.3 Conclusion
Language policies have been a central focus of the Estonian integration program since 2000
and have sparked tensions between ethnic Estonians and ethnic Russians regarding the
importance of the Estonian language for belonging to and participating in Estonian society.
For the most part, Estonian elites have argued that learning the Estonian language is the key
to integration between the two communities. The first results of the TIES survey presented
above promises to shed new light on the linguistic situation among second generation
Russians in Estonia. Not surprisingly, the survey shows that both communities tend to be
raised in their own mother-tongue. Despite this, a high percentage of Russian respondents
evaluate their Estonian language skills as good or better. Making a direct comparison with
results of periodic integration monitoring in Estonia is problematic because of the different
scales that were used in the two studies. Further research will need focus on the
interpretation of these responses in order to make more meaningful comparisons. A language
proficiency index will also need to be created so that language skills can be used as an
independent variable in further analysis. At the present time the distribution of responses
would not allow for this type of analysis. Nevertheless the positive evaluation of Estonian
language skills by second generation Russians is a significant finding that promises to have
important theoretical and political implications in Estonia. In addition to evaluating their
language proficiency in a positive manner, second generation Russians in both Tallinn and
Kohtla-Järve felt that knowing the Estonian language was important.
The results of the TIES survey also show that there are certain situations in which Russian
respondents tend to speak more Russian than Estonian. These situations are mostly personal
situations including communicating with family, friends, partners and doctors. There is an
interesting contrast between Russian respondents living in Tallinn and Kohtla-Järve. More
Russian respondents in Kohtla-Järve indicated that they were likely to use at least some
Estonian in these situations. In addition, Russians in Tallinn evaluated their Russian
language skills as more positively than respondents in Kohtla-Järve. This may be related to
higher education levels among respondents in Tallinn as respondents in Tallinn also rated
their English language skills more positively and should be a question for future research.
The difference in Russian language proficiency could also be due to the fact that Russians in
Tallinn feel a stronger need to hold onto their cultural background and to live as “Russians”
due to their different demographic situation in Tallinn. Explaining this variation will be an
important part of further research. On the whole more Russian respondents indicated that
they use at least some Estonian in less personal situations, with colleagues and with
government officials. Estonians were also asked to evaluate their language skills in Russian
and not surprisingly respondents in Kohtla-Järve rated their skills more positively, most
likely as a result of the demographic situation of the two cities.
Estonian respondents did indicate that they feel a threat to the Estonian language and culture
and that the Estonian language and culture must be protected from the influence of Russian
language and culture. Estonians respondents also indicated that Russians should make more
of an effort to adapt to Estonian society. Russian respondents indicated that they do not feel
any assimilative pressure and that their culture is not at risk in Estonia. While both Estonian
82
and Russian respondent were mostly indifferent to how Russians should behave in their
homes and in private life, the majority of Estonian respondents felt that outside the home,
Russians should live as much as possible in accordance with Estonian norms and values.
Finally, while the vast majority of Russians agreed that the government should do more to
improve the position of non-Estonians in Estonian society, and that the government should
promote the languages and cultures of minority groups, Estonians respondents were more
sceptical with a little less than half of respondents agreeing with these.
References
Alba, Richard D, V. Nee. 1997. Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of
Immigration. International Migration Review, 31(4):826-874.
Berry, John W, Phinney, J.S., Sam, D.L., Vedder, P. 2006. Immigrant Youth: Acculturation,
Identity and Adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55 (3), 303-332.
Berry, John W. 2005. Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 503. Elsevier Ltd.
Berry, John W. 1997. Immigration, Acculturation, and Adaptation. Applied Psychology: An
International Review 46(1): 5-68.
Brubaker, Rogers. 1998. Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in
the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csergo, Zsuzsa. 2007. Talk of the Nation: Language and Conflict in Romania and Slovakia.
Cornell University Press.
Glazer, Nathan. 1993. Is Assimilation Dead? Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 530: 187-202.
Kelley, Judith. 2004. Ethnic Politics in Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kemppainen, R. & Ferrin, S.E. 2002. Parental choice and language-of-instruction policies
and practices in Estonia. Education and Urban Society 35: 76-99.
Laitin, David. 1998. Identity in Formation: The Russian Speaking Populations in the Near
Abroad. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Lauristin, Marju and Triin Vihalemm. 1997. “Changing value systems: Civilizational shift
and local differences”. In Return to the Western world: Cultural and political perspectives
on the Estonian post-communist transition, eds. M. Lauristin et al, Tartu: Tartu University
Press.
Mollenkopf, J. 1999. Assimilating Immigrants in Amsterdam: A Perspective from New
York. Netherlands Journal of Social Science, 36: 126-145.
Petersoo, Pille. 2007. Reconsidering otherness: constructing Estonian identity, Nations and
Nationalism 13 (1): 117-133.
Phinney, Jean. 2003. “Ethnic identity and acculturation”. In Acculturation: Advances in
theory, measurement, and applied research, eds. K. Chun, P. Organista, G. Marin,
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 63-81.
83
7. Interethnic Relations: Social Thermometer and Ethnic
Diversity
Written and prepared by Jennie Schulze 39
7.1 Interethnic Relations
In the early 1990s, Estonia adopted a nation-station approach to state-building which
marginalized the large Russian-speaking population through language, citizenship and
education policies. Consequently, theorists predicted the outbreak of ethnic conflict in Estonia
(Brubaker 1998, Melvin 1999). When the nationalization project did not turn violent, many
political scientists turned their attention toward explaining this perplexing case of nonviolence (Jubulis 2001; King and Melvin 2000). Relations between ethnic Estonians and
ethnic Russians since independence have been remarkably peaceful until April 2007. The
governments decision to remove the “Bronze Soldier”, a war memorial to the Soviet soldiers
who died in WWII, from the center of downtown Tallinn sparked protests from the Russian
community which turned into violent riots on the night of April 27. After the Bronze Soldier
crisis there has been a lot of discussion in Estonia about the nature of interethnic relations.
There are several questions in the TIES survey that ask respondents to evaluate the
relationships between ethnic groups in society as well as their attitudes toward ethnic diversity
and their feelings of “warmness” toward different ethnic groups in society This section will
also evaluate both experiences with discrimination and perceptions of discrimination among
ethnic Estonian and ethnic Russian respondents. The 2005 Integration Monitoring found that
perception of threat or danger between ethnic Estonians and ethnic Russians has been steadily
decreasing. Whereas in 1999 two thirds of ethnic Estonians considered ethnic Russians to be a
danger to Estonian national identity, in 2005 only 16% of ethnic Estonians felt this way. The
2005 Monitoring also reported that only a very small percentage of respondents from both
ethnicities experienced conflicts or hostility on ethnic grounds.
39
Jennie Schulze is a PhD Candidate at The George Washington University, Washington DC.
[email protected]
84
The TIES survey asked both ethnic Estonians and ethnic Russians to evaluate the state of
interethnic relations (Figure 7.1).The majority of respondents (56.4%) were indifferent to
whether they would describe relations between Estonians and Russians as friendly, and 24.7%
described this relationship as not so friendly, with only 15.8% of respondents describing the
relationship as friendly.
Figure 7.1 In general, to what extent would you describe the relationship between Estonians
and Russians in Tallinn/Kohtla-Järve as friendly?
70
59,3
53,6
Percentages
60
50
40
28,2
21,1
30
16,215,4
20
10
2,5 2,8
0,8 0
0
Not Friendly
at All
Not So
Friendly
Indifferent
Friendly
Very Friendly
Response categories
Estonians (N=487)
Russians (N=507)
Among Estonian respondents, age group was significant with the older age group viewing
relations as slightly more friendly than the younger age group. Among the 26-35 yr old
(N=274), 21% of respondents indicated that relations were friendly or very friendly, compared
with 12.2% in the 18-25 yr old group (N=213). Comparatively 33.3% of the younger group
indicated that relations were not so friendly or no friendly at all compared with 16% of the
older age group.
In general, respondents do not see a great improvement in interethnic relations over the past
five years. The largest percentage of respondents (44.5%) felt that ethnic relations have
remained the same with 34.9% believing that they have worsened and 19.9% indicating that
interethnic relations have improved. Responses to this question did not vary significantly by
ethnicity. Place of residence was however significant. Not surprisingly, given the Bronze
Soldier crisis, respondents in Tallinn evaluated interethnic relations as being slightly worse
than those respondents in Kohtla-Järve. In Tallinn, 45.1% of respondents indicated that
relations were less friendly or somewhat less friendly compared with 26.5% in Kohtla-Järve.
The majority of respondents (54.4%) in Kohtla-Järve felt that relations remained the same
compared with 34.1% in Tallinn.
85
Figure 7.2 How has the relationship between Estonians and Russians in Tallinn/Kohtla-Järve
changed over the last five years?
60
54,4
Percentages
50
35,4
40
30
34,1
22,9
20
18,617,4
13,8
9,7
10
3,6
2,2 1,7
5,8
0
Less
Friendly
Somewhat No change Somewhat A Lot More Very Bad
Less
More
Friendly
Friendly
Friendly
Response categories
Tallinn (N=463)
Kohtla-Järve (N=528)
7.1.1 Attitudes toward Ethnic Diversity
Integration Monitoring in 2005 found that Estonians are becoming increasingly disturbed by
the different cultural practices of Russians: 80% of Estonians are disturbed by the fact that
Estonian Russians do not know Estonian; 78% consider their way of life and thinking to be
different from those of Estonian Russians; and 59% of Estonians are disturbed by the
difference in behavior and lifestyle of Estonian Russians. Despite this disturbance over twothirds of Estonians indicated that they were willing to work together with Estonian Russians,
live near them, and spend their free time with them. However, the monitoring also showed
that Estonian Russians are not disturbed by the behavior of ethnic Estonians: Only 3%
indicated that they are intensely disturbed and 23% are somewhat disturbed by the different
behavior and lifestyle of Estonians.
The results of the TIES survey are somewhat consistent with this integration monitoring.
Estonians view living together with people of different ethnic backgrounds as slightly more
threatening, than Russians do. Approximately 40% of Estonians felt that this situation was
definitely threatening (3.1%) or rather threatening (37.2%) compared with only 13% of
Russians (1.4% definitely threatening; 11.7% rather threatening). While approximately the
same number of Estonians (33.2%) and Russians (31.1%) found the situation to be enriching,
a much larger number of Russian respondents (55.8%) indicated indifference to this question
compared with Estonians (26.5%).
86
Figure 7.3 - Would you say that living together with people of different ethnic background is
threatening or enriching for Russian/Estonian culture?
55,8
60
Percentages
50
37,2
40
31,129,7
26,5
30
20
11,7
10
2,1 4,1
3,1 1,4
0
Definitely
Threatening
Rather
Threatening
Indifferent
Rather
Enriching
Defininitely
Enriching
Response categories
Estonians (N=486)
Russians (N=505)
On the whole, respondents are more positive about the effect of different ethnic backgrounds
on the economy. There is a weak association between ethnicity and responses to this question.
44.7% of Estonians and 41.6% of Russians felt that the presence of people with different
ethnic backgrounds was rather good or definitely good for the economy: 41.3% and 51.2% of
ethnic Estonians and ethnic Russians respectively felt that it made no difference. Place of
residence was also significant with respondents in Tallinn (57.4%) rating the effect of ethnic
diversity on the economy as good or definitely good compared with 30.3% in Kohtla-Järve.
Figure 7.4 Is the presence of people of different ethnic background good or bad for the
economy in Tallinn/Kohtla-Järve?
57
60
54,6
Percentages
50
40
34,3
28,2
30
20
10
8
13,8
11,5
2,8 2,1
0,2 1,2
5,8
0
Definitely
Bad
Rather Bad Indifferent
Rather
Good
Definitely
Good
Very Bad
Response categories
Tallinn (N=463)
Kohtla-Järve (N=521)
87
When Estonian respondents were asked to evaluate the statement, “It would be good for the
Estonian economy if there were fewer people of different ethnic origin living here” place of
residence was non-significant, however responses were roughly similar to the responses to the
previous question (Table 7.4). 32.3% of the 481 respondents who answered the question either
disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, 46.8% felt that it made no difference and
21% agreed with it.
There is a weak association between ethnicity and attitudes toward religious diversity with
slightly more Russian (18.3%) than Estonian (13.2%) respondents viewing religious diversity
as negative. However, the majority of respondents in both groups were indifferent to this
question, which reflects the secular nature of Estonian society (68.3%, 61.8%).
Percentages
Figure 7.5 It is good for Tallinn/Kohtla-Järve that there are a variety of different religions.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
68,3
61,8
22,6
11,4
9,3
2,3 2
Totally Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
16,1
Disagree
3,9 2,2
Totally
Disagree
Response categories
Estonians (N=482)
Russians (N=502)
7.1.2 Social Thermometer: Feeling of Warmness toward Different Ethnic Groups
All respondents were asked to rate their affinity or “feeling of warmness” toward different
groups in Estonian society on a scale from 0 degrees (no feeling of warmness) to 100 degrees
(very warm). There were significant differences between Estonian and Russian responses to
these questions across the five different categories. Estonians felt the warmest toward other
Estonians followed by Estonian Russians, while Russians felt the warmest toward Estonian
Russians followed by Russians in Russia. Russian respondents felt almost equally warm
toward Estonians as they did toward other minorities. Both Estonians and Russians indicated
the lowest degree of warmth toward Muslims followed by black people. These findings are
consistent with previous studies that have noted the high level of xenophobia and fear of
visible minorities in Estonian society. In 2003, Estonia along with Latvia was cited as the
candidate country most resistant to the creation of a multicultural society (EUMC Report 3
2003).
88
Table 7.1 – How warm do you feel toward the following groups (0-100 degrees)?
Estonians
Russians
Estonians
0 degrees
0.0
.6
Between 0 and 50 degrees
1.0
8.1
50 degrees
12.9
44.2
Between 50 and 100 degrees
44.4
30.0
100 degrees
41.7
17.2
Total N
487
507
Estonian Russians
0 degrees
3.5
.4
Between 0 and 50 degrees
11.9
3.4
50 degrees
42.8
35.9
Between 50 and 100 degrees
32.5
34.3
100 degrees
9.3
26.0
Total N
486
507
Other Minorities
0 degrees
4.3
.4
Between 0 and 50 degrees
14.4
5.5
50 degrees
51.7
46.9
Between 50 and 100 degrees
24.2
26.2
100 degrees
5.3
20.9
Total N
487
507
Muslims
0 degrees
16.0
5.9
Between 0 and 50 degrees
21.0
17.0
50 degrees
48.3
54.0
Between 50 and 100 degrees
11.4
11.5
100 degrees
3.3
11.7
Total N
482
506
Russians in Russia
0 degrees
9.1
.8
Between 0 and 50 degrees
23.5
3.6
50 degrees
42.2
40.1
Between 50 and 100 degrees
18.7
28.7
100 degrees
6.4
26.9
Total N
486
506
Black People
0 degrees
7.2
6.0
Between 0 and 50 degrees
14.2
13.7
50 degrees
53.0
56.5
Between 50 and 100 degrees
20.0
12.1
100 degrees
4.3
11.7
Total N
485
504
89
Place of residence was significant for Russian respondents with respect to their feelings of
warmness toward Muslims and Russians in Russia with respondents from Kohtla-Järve
indicating that they feel warmer toward both these groups than Russian respondents in
Tallinn. Almost 33% of respondents in Kohtla-Järve indicated 100 degrees of warmness
toward Russians in Russia compared with only 18% in Tallinn. Likewise 27% of respondents
in Kohtla-Järve indicated that they felt more than 50 degrees of warmth toward Muslims
(14.0% at 100 degrees) compared with only 17% of respondents in Tallinn (8.2% at 100
degrees). Place of residence was significant for Estonian respondents only with respect to their
feelings of warmness toward other Estonians. Many more respondents in Kohtla-Järve
indicated that they had neutral feelings for other Estonians (20.3%) compared with
respondents in Tallinn (6.3%).
7.2 Discrimination
Both Estonian and Russian respondents were asked a number of questions about whether they
experience discrimination in different aspects of their life as well as their belief as to the
causes of discrimination. The majority of Estonian and Russian respondents indicated that
they never experience hostility or unfair treatment on the basis of ethnicity.
Percentages
Figure 7.6 Have you ever experienced hostility or unfair treatment towards you because of
your ethnicity, either as a child or later in life?
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
73 70,6
15,518,1
Never
Rarely
8,6 8,7
Occasionally
2,9 2,6
Regularly
0
0
Frequently
3,3 4,7
Don't know
Response categories
Estonians (N=478)
Russians (N=503)
When respondents were asked how often they experienced hostility or unfair treatment in their
neighborhood more Estonians than Russians indicated that they experienced this. This is most
likely due to the fact that more Estonian respondents live in mixed ethnic neighborhoods than
Russian respondents. Among Estonians, 64.4% indicated that they never experience hostility
or unfair treatment compared with 77.2% of Russian respondents: 23.9% of Estonians
compared with 14.5% of Russians indicated that they rarely experienced hostility or unfair
treatment in their neighborhoods. More Estonian and Russian respondents indicated that they
experience hostility or unfair treatment when going out, however the majority of Estonians
90
(54.3%) and Russians (65.1%) indicated that they never experience this treatment: 20.2% of
Russians and 29.5% of Estonians indicated that they experienced this treatment rarely, with
12% of each group indicating that they experience it occasionally.
Figure 7.7 How often do you experience hostility
or unfair treatment in your neighborhood?
Figure 7.8 How often do you experience
hostility or unfair treatment when you go
out?
100
80
77,2
80
65,1
Percentages
60
40
23,9
14,5
20
8,96,5
54,3
60
40
29,5
20,2
20
2,71,6
12,1
12,3
3,72,4
0 0,2
0
0,4 0
Fr
eq
ue
nt
ly
eg
ul
ar
ly
R
O
cc
as
si
on
al
ly
ar
el
y
R
ev
er
Fr
eq
ue
nt
ly
eg
ul
ar
ly
R
cc
as
si
on
al
ly
O
ar
el
y
R
N
ev
er
0
N
Percentages
64,4
Response categories
Response categories
Estonian (N=481)
Russians (N=504)
Estonian (N=481)
Russians (N=505)
Estonians and Russians also did not evaluate their experiences with government officials
differently, with 63.7% of Russians and 66% of Estonians indicating that they never
experience hostility or unfair treatment with government officials. 15.9% and 19.7% of
Russians and Estonians indicated that they rarely experience this treatment. Encounters with
police are evaluated even more positively among both groups with 78.3% of Estonians and
81.5% of Russians indicating that they never experience hostility or unfair treatment. Place
of residence was not significantly associated with responses to these questions.
91
Figure 7.10 How often do you experience
hostility or unfair treatment in encounters
with police?
100
100
80
80
6663,7
Percentages
60
40
19,7
15,9
20
14,5
10,6
3,15,4
81,5
78,3
60
40
13,7
11,3
20
0,60,6
0
5,24,4
1,9 2
1 0,8
Fr
eq
ue
nt
ly
eg
ul
ar
ly
R
O
cc
as
si
on
al
ly
ar
el
y
N
ev
er
Fr
eq
ue
nt
ly
eg
ul
ar
ly
R
cc
as
si
on
al
ly
ar
el
y
O
R
N
ev
er
0
R
Percentages
Figure 7.9 How often do you experience
hostility or unfair treatment in interaction with
government officials or municipal authorities?
Response categories
Response categories
Estonian (N=483)
Russians (N=504)
Estonian (N=483)
Russians (N=503)
In addition respondents were asked to speculate on the reason for the unfair treatment. A
higher percentage of both Estonian and Russian respondents indicated that the reason for the
treatment was due to ethnicity or language than to social class or some other reason. However
a higher percentage of Estonians than Russians indicated that social class or some other
reason for the treatment.
Figure 7.11 In general, what would you say is the
reason(s) for this hostility? Ethnicity or descent?
Figure 7.12 In general what would you say is
the reason(s) for this hostility? Language or
accent?
100
100
86,3
76,2
80
80
60
40
35,7
23,8
Percentages
Percentages
64,3
60
41,7
40
20
20
0
0
Estonian (N=140)
Russians (N=126)
Response categories
Yes
No
58,3
13,7
Estonian (N=132)
Russians (N=153)
Response categories
Yes
No
88
Figure 7.13 In general, what would you say is
the reason(s) for this hostility? Social class or
class origin?
80
Figure 7.14 In general what would you say
is the reason(s) for this hostility? Other?
80
72
70
70
56,6
57,7
60
43,4
40
28
30
Percentages
Percentages
60
50
71,8
50
30
20
20
10
10
0
42,3
40
28,2
0
Estonian (N=113)
Russians (N=75)
Response categories
Yes
No
Estonian (N=132)
Russians (N=153)
Response categories
Yes
No
The majority of Estonian respondents (80.6%) indicated that they experienced this hostility from
Russians, whereas the majority of Russians (85.7%) indicated that they experienced this hostility from
Estonians. This is not surprising considering that the majority of Estonian and Russian respondents
indicated that the reason for hostility was due to ethnicity or language.
Estonian and Russian respondents were also asked to speculate on how often they think that different
groups in society experience hostility or unfair treatment because of their ethnicity or descent. With
respect to Muslims the largest group of both Estonian (57.4%) and Russian (45.7%) respondents
(N=488; 512) indicated that they did not know. The same was true with respect to black people with
46.3% Estonian respondents (N=488) and 44.9% of Russian respondents (N=512) answered that they
did not know. For both Muslims and black people a very small percentage of all respondents indicated
that these groups never experienced hostility or unfair treatment. With respect to Estonians many more
Russian respondents (19.5%) than Estonian respondents (9.4%) felt that they never experience hostility
or unfair treatment because of their ethnicity.
A number of questions were asked about the Russian community in particular. Interestingly, when
asked to speculate on how often Russians experience hostility or unfair treatment because of their
ethnicity or descent more Estonians than Russians felt that Russians experience at least occasional
unfair treatment.
89
Figure 7.14 How often do you think that Russians experience hostility or unfair
treatment because of their ethnicity or descent?
45
39,3
Percentages
40
35
32,6
30
25,2
22,1
25
20
15
10
5
21,5
16,4
12,5
12,312,1
3,1
1,6 1,2
0
Never
Rarely
Occasionally
Regularly
Frequently
Don't know
Response categories
Estonians (N=488)
Russians (N=512)
Slightly more respondents in Tallinn than in Kohtla-Järve felt that Russians experience some
discrimination. Only 5% of respondents in Tallinn indicated that Russians never experience
hostility or unfair treatment compared with 10.4% in Kohtla-Järve. The largest group of
respondents in Tallinn (40.9%) indicated that Russians occasionally experience hostility,
followed by 23.3% that indicated they regularly experience hostility. In Kohtla-Järve, 31.9%
indicated that Russians occasionally experience hostility and 15.1% indicated that they
experience it regularly. This is most likely due to the different demographics of the two cities
and perhaps the Bronze Soldier crisis. Respondents were also asked how often they felt that
Russians experienced hostility in different situations.
Table 7.2 How often do you think that Russians experience hostility or unfair treatment
because of their ethnicity or descent in the following situations?
Estonian
Russian
20.5
25.8
28.1
5.9
.8
18.9
488
36.7
26.8
20.1
3.7
.4
12.3
512
At School
Never
Rarely
Occasionally
Regularly
Frequently
Don’t Know
Total N
Continued on the next page
90
Estonian
Russian
Never
Rarely
Occasionally
Regularly
Frequently
Don’t Know
Total N
Looking for Work
21.5
37.3
20.5
4.5
.2
16
488
23
23.6
27
10.5
1.4
14.5
512
Never
Rarely
Occasionally
Regularly
Frequently
Don’t Know
Total N
When Going Out
10.7
21.9
31.6
17.2
1.6
17
488
16.2
19.3
22.7
22.1
6.6
13.1
512
Never
Rarely
Occasionally
Regularly
Frequently
Don’t Know
Total N
14.5
29.1
30.3
8.4
2.0
15.6
488
24.8
32.4
25.6
6.6
.2
10.4
512
23.6
38.7
19.5
1
0
17.2
488
36.7
34.8
16.4
2.5
0
9.6
512
At Work
In their Neighborhood
Never
Rarely
Occasionally
Regularly
Frequently
Don’t Know
Total N
Interactions with Government and Municipal Authorities
Never
Rarely
Occasionally
Regularly
Frequently
Don’t Know
Total N
Continued on the next page
16.8
27.5
27.7
6.8
.2
21.1
488
24
24.6
24.6
10.7
2.5
13.5
512
91
Estonian
Russian
19.9
25.4
19.5
5.7
.8
28.7
488
31.8
18.2
17.4
7.4
1.0
24.2
512
Encounters with the Police
Never
Rarely
Occasionally
Regularly
Frequently
Don’t Know
Total N
7.3 Conclusion
While the evaluation of language proficiency by Russian respondents pointed in a positive
direction for social integration between the two communities, the results of this section on
interethnic relations paint a more problematic picture. The majority of Russian and
Estonian respondents had no opinion on the state of relations between Russians and
Estonians and the second largest group viewed these relations as unfriendly. In addition,
the majority of respondents did not see any improvement in the state of interethnic
relations. This may have a lot to do with the timing of the research as it surrounded the
Bronze Soldier crisis which sparked apprehension between Russians and Estonians in
society. Follow-up qualitative interviews may be useful for determining the precise reasons
for this negative evaluation.
On the whole, attitudes toward ethnic diversity were positive for both groups, however
more Estonian than Russian respondents felt that living together with people of different
ethnic backgrounds was threatening. Sociological studies on xenophobia have showed that
there is a fear of foreigners and diversity in Estonian society and this might help to explain
the differences in responses between the two ethnic groups. This fear of foreigners is most
likely due to both the history of foreign domination Estonia as well as to the fact that
Estonian society was closed for significant parts of its history. While slightly more Russian
respondents viewed religious diversity as negative, on the whole the majority of
respondents were indifferent to religious diversity which reflects the secular nature of
Estonian society. With respect to attitudes toward different groups in society, both
Estonians and Russians felt the least warmth toward Muslims followed by black people. It
is interesting to note that Russians felt the warmest toward other Estonian Russians
followed by Russians in Russia. By contrast Estonians felt the warmest toward other
Estonians followed by Estonian Russians.
The majority of both Estonian and Russian respondents indicated that they have not
experienced hostility or unfair treatment as a result of their ethnicity or descent. Russians
that did experience this hostility felt that it was most often due to their language or their
ethnicity. While Estonians who indicated that they experienced hostility also thought it was
92
due primarily to their ethnicity, more Estonian than Russian respondents indicated that it
was due to social class or some other reason. Both Estonians and Russians indicated that
Muslims followed by black people are the ones that most often experience hostility or
unfair treatment in Estonian society. Due to the fact that the majority of both Estonian and
Russian respondents indicated that that the primary source of hostility was ethnicity or
descent it is not surprising that the majority of Estonian respondents indicated that the
source of hostility was from Russians and that the majority of Russian respondents
indicated that Estonians were the primary source of hostility and unfair treatment.
It is interesting to note that both Estonian and Russian respondents perceive a certain level
of discrimination directed toward the Russian minority as a whole. Russian respondents
indicated that the Russian minority experiences some discrimination at work and when
looking for work. What is interesting is that a higher percentage of Estonian than Russian
respondents felt that Russians experience at least some discrimination at school, in their
neighborhoods, when going out, and when interacting with government officials and
police. Integration Monitoring has argued that there is a high perception of discrimination
among the Russian minority despite the fact that they might not experience discrimination
personally. The results of the TIES survey casts doubt on these findings because the
perception of discrimination toward the Russian minority is actually less prevalent among
Russians than among the native control group.
References
Brubaker, Rogers. 1998. Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in
the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
EUMC 2003. Attitudes towards Migrants and Minorities in Europe. Report # 3.
Jubulis,Mark A. 2001. Nationalism and democratic transition. The politics
of citizenship and language in Post-Soviet Latvia. Lanham: University Press
of America.
King, Charles and Neil J. Melvin, Diaspora Politics: Ethnic Linkages,
Foreign Policy, and Security in Eurasia. International Security (Winter 1999/2000).
93
8. Social Relations
Written and prepared by Jennie Schulze 1
Social integration is defined as the degree to which members of different groups are
segregated and the degree to which they intermix. Social integration involves both the
frequency and strength of contact between different societal groups and is measured in
terms of participation in networks that span intergroup divides (Jandt 1998). Indicators of
social integration of immigrants include their social networks, friendships, partnerships,
marriage and membership in voluntary organisations, as well as spatial integration in terms
of settlement and neighbourhood composition (Bosswick and Heckmann 2006:10; Waters
and Jimenez 2005: 108). Social integration is measured thus on two dimensions:
involvement in both immigrants’ own ethnic communities and their social ties and
involvement with the larger society, especially the majority group. Much theoretical work
on social integration has concluded that low levels of social integration were likely to result
in social conflict between groups (Allport 1979; Gordon 1964; Munche and Marske 1981;
Rubel and Kupferer 1968; Speilberg 1968). The contact thesis argues that when members
of one group engage in significant interaction with members of another group, prejudices
between groups tend to erode even in the face of in-group pressures to maintain negative
stereotypes. Consequently, the more minorities come into contact with and interact with the
ethnic majority, the more likely both groups are to see themselves as part of the same
socio-political community, and the less likely they are to engage in violence.
The TIES survey asked a number of questions about social interactions. In addition to
asking the willingness of respondents to interact with the other ethnic group in certain
situations, as was the case with the 2005 Integration Monitoring, the TIES survey asked
about actual social patterns. These included questions about current and past friendships
and partner choices, as well as participation in clubs or activities.
8.1 Friendships
The survey asked Russian respondents who they would prefer to be friends with. The
majority of Russian respondents (68.8%) indicated that they would prefer to have both
Russian and Estonian friends. The second largest group indicated that they would prefer to
have mostly Russian friends (28.6%). Only 1% responded that they would prefer to have
mostly Estonian friends, and 1% indicated that they would prefer to have neither Estonian
1
Jennie Schulze is a PhD Candidate at The George Washington University, Washington DC.
[email protected]
94
nor Russian friends. This does indicate a willingness to interact socially on the part of
young Russians and therefore the findings are consistent with Integration Monitoring 2005.
Responses to this question did not differ significantly according to place of residence, age
group, or sex.
The TIES survey asked both Estonian and Russian respondents about the ethnicity of their
friendships in secondary school and the ethnicity of their current friends. Responses to
these questions were very similar for both Russian and Estonian respondents. Both groups
tended to have friends within their same ethnic circle during secondary school: 62.6% of
ethnic Russians indicated that they had no Estonian friends during secondary school and
54.2% of ethnic Estonians indicated that they had no Russian friends during secondary
school. However there is some evidence of a willingness to cultivate friendships with
members of the other ethnic group which is indicated by the fact that 33.7% of Russians
indicated that they had very few or some Estonian friends with 36.6% of Estonians
indicating the same with respect to Russians.
Figure 8.1 When you were in secondary school, how many of your friends were
Estonians/Russians?
70
Percentages
60
62,6
54,2
50
40
30
21,4
17,3
20
15,216,4
6
10
3
3,1 0,7
0
None
Very Few
Some
Many
Most
Response categories
Estonians (N=415)
Russians (N=428)
While place of residence, age group and sex did not affect responses to this question among
ethnic Russian respondents, age group was significantly associated with responses to this
question among ethnic Estonians. The younger age group had more friends of Russian
ethnicity than the older age group in secondary school. Among 26-35 yr olds (N=263),
63.5% of respondents indicated that they had no Russian friends in secondary school
compared with 38.2% among those respondents aged 18-25 (N=152).
The TIES survey also asked about the ethnicity of the three best friends during secondary
school. Responses to these questions among Estonian and Russian respondents reinforce
that they tend to make friends within their own ethnic circle. There was also a weak
association between place of residence and responses to these questions among ethnic
Estonians with respondents in Kohtla-Järve having more Russian friends in secondary
school than respondents in Tallinn.
95
Table 8.1 What was the ethnicity of your (Best, Second Best, Third Best) Friend during
secondary school?
Best Friend
Estonian
Russian
Some other ethnicity of former Soviet Union
Other ethnicity
Don’t know
Total N
Second Best Friend
Estonian
Russian
Some other ethnicity of former Soviet Union
Other ethnicity
Don’t know
Total N
Third Best Friend
Estonian
Russian
Some other ethnicity of former Soviet Union
Other ethnicity
Don’t know
Total N
Estonian
Russian
92.1
6.3
0
0
1.6
429
6.1
83.7
2.0
1.1
7.2
459
89.3
7.7
.9
0
2.1
429
6.8
83.4
1.5
.4
7.8
459
89.0
8.2
0
0
2.8
429
7.0
81.5
2.4
.4
8.7
459
Both Estonian and Russian respondents currently have more friends of the other ethnic
group than they did when they were in secondary school. While 38.3% of Russians and
31.7% of Estonians still indicate that they have no friends of the other ethnic group, 54.7%
of Russians and 53.7% of Estonians indicate that they have a few or some friends of the
other ethnic group and 12.4% of Estonians indicated that they had many Russian friends.
Percentages
Figure 8.2 How many Estonian/Russian friends do you currently have?
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
38,3
31,7
32,1
29,4
25,3
21,6
12,4
5,7
None
Very Few
Some
Many
Response categories
Estonians (N=477)
2,3 1,4
Most
Russians (N=494)
Again, place of residence was significant among Estonian respondents, with those
respondents in Kohtla-Järve (23.9%) indicating that they have many or mostly Russian
friends, compared with only Tallinn (6.4%). However, approximately the same number in
96
both cities indicated that they had no Russian friends (29.2% and 33.9%). Place of
residence was non-significant for Russians.
Table 8.2 Ethnicity of Current Best Friend by Ethnicity
Best Friend
Estonian
Russian
Some other ethnicity of former Soviet Union
Other ethnicity
Don’t know
Total N
Second Best Friend
Estonian
Russian
Some other ethnicity of former Soviet Union
Other ethnicity
Don’t know
Total N
Third Best Friend
Estonian
Russian
Some other ethnicity of former Soviet Union
Other ethnicity
Don’t know
Total N
Estonian
Russian
92.0
6.6
.2
0
1.2
488
16.2
79.9
.4
1.8
1.8
512
86.7
10.2
.4
.4
2.3
488
13.7
81.4
2.0
.2
2.7
512
83.4
12.3
0
1.2
3.1
488
10.0
82.4
2.9
1.4
3.3
512
Place of residence was significant for both Russians and Estonians with respect to current
best friendships. A higher percentage of Russians in Kohtla-Järve (22.6%) than in Tallinn
(6.8%) indicated that their current best friend is Estonian. The same trend holds for
Estonians. 11.3% of Estonians in Kohtla-Järve indicated that their best friend is Russian
compared with only 2.3% in Tallinn.
Table 8.3 Ethnicity of Current Best Friend by City and Ethnicity
Estonians
Estonian
Russian
Some other ethnicity of former Soviet Union
Other ethnicity
Don’t know
Total N
Russians
Estonian
Russian
Some other ethnicity of former Soviet Union
Other ethnicity
Don’t know
Total N
Tallinn
Kohtla-Järve
96.9
2.3
0
0
.8
257
86.6
11.3
.4
0
1.7
231
6.8
87.4
1.0
2.9
1.9
207
22.6
74.8
0
1
1.6
305
97
With relation to second and third best friends, the majority of respondents still maintain
friendships within their own ethnic group, however, the number of Estonian respondents
with Russian friends increases slightly.
8.2 Partner Choice
Partner choice and intermarriage rates have often been used as a lithmus test for social
integration. While the TIES survey did not ask directly about the ethnicity of current and
last partners it did ask about the birth country of partners and the birth country of those
partners parents, as well as the citizenship of the partner, marriage to that partner and
finally whether respondents felt any pressure to marry or to renounce marriage by family
members. At the present time this report only contains information on the choice of current
partners. Partner choice among previous partners will be analyzed later. Partner choice
does vary by ethnicity among TIES respondents with both Estonians and Russians
choosing partners within their same ethnic circle.
Table 8.4 What country was your partner/partner’s mother/partner’s father born in?
Estonian
98
.4
1.6
0
248
Russian
83.6
13.2
1.8
1.4
281
Partner’s Mother
Estonia
Russia
Other
Don’t know
Total N
90.3
4.0
3.6
2.0
248
41.6
42
8.9
7.5
281
Partner’s Father
Estonia
Russia
Other
Don’t know
Total N
87.1
6.5
2.4
4.0
248
37.7
40.2
9.6
12.5
281
Partner
Estonia
Russia
Other
Don’t know
Total N
Place of residence was not significantly associated with the ethnic background of partners
among either Russian respondents or Estonian respondents. Place of residence was only
significant among Russian respondents with respect to partner’s citizenship status: 62% of
Russian respondents in Tallinn indicated that their partner has Estonian citizenship
compared with only 38% in Kohtla-Järve.
98
Table 8.5 What Citizenship does your Current Partner Have?
Estonia
Russia
Other
Don’t know
Total N
Estonian
Russian
96.0
14.2
2.8
.4
248
48.0
.8
31
3.6
281
There was also no significant association between sex and the ethnic background of
partners, however this may be due to the larger number of female respondents who
answered this question. Among Russians 211 were female and 70 were male. Among
Estonians, 175 were female and 73 were male.
8.3 Neighborhood
Some social scientists have argued that the spatial integration is a measure of social
integration as well as social capital (Bosswick and Heckmann 2006:10; Waters and
Jimenez 2005: 108). The TIES survey asked about the ethnicity of neighborhoods in which
respondents live as well as what their preferences for ethnic composition would be. Figure
8.3 shows that Russian respondents are living in neighborhoods that are predominately
Russian. By contrast more Estonian respondents indicated that they live in ethnically mixed
neighborhoods.
Percentages
Figure 8.3 How would you describe the neighborhood you are currently living in? What
percentage of inhabitants are of your own ethnic group?
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
33,833,4
33,4
24
19,9
14,5
15
7,8
9,4
0,8
Most
Around 75%
50%
3,3 4,7
Around 25% Almost None Don't know
Response categories
Estonians (N=488)
Russians (N=512)
Place of residence was significant among Russian and Estonian respondents. This is not
surprising considering the demographics of the two cities. As was discussed previously in
the country report, Kohtla-Järve has a much higher percentage of Russians living there than
does Tallinn which explains why both ethnic Russians and ethnic Estonians in Kohtla-Järve
reported a higher percentage of Russian inhabitants in their neighborhoods.
99
Table 8.6 How would you describe the neighborhood you are currently living in? What
percentage of inhabitants are of your own ethnic group?
Estonian
Russian
Tallinn
Kohtla-Järve Tallinn Kohtla-Järve
The inhabitants are mostly
Russians/Estonians
Around 75% of the inhabitants are
Russians/Estonians
Half of the inhabitants are
Russians/Estonians
Around 25% of the inhabitants are
Russians/Estonians
Almost none of the inhabitants are
Russians/Estonians
Don’t know
Total N
22.6
5.6
8.2
50.5
20.6
8.7
14.5
23.6
43.6
22.9
57.5
17.0
8.9
40.7
14.0
3.6
.4
19.5
1.4
.3
3.9
257
2.6
231
4.3
207
4.9
305
Respondents were also asked their preferences with respect to the ethnic composition of
neighborhoods. The largest percentage of respondents among Russians and Estonians
indicated that it makes no difference (51.4%: 36.7%). However a much larger percentage
of Estonians indicated that they would prefer to live where most of the inhabitants are
Estonians. Place of residence was also significant among Russian and Estonian
respondents. More Estonian respondents in Tallinn would prefer to live among their own
ethnic group, whereas more Russian respondents in Kohtla-Järve preferred to live among
their own ethnic group. This reflects the current living situation of these groups as shown in
Figure 8.3.
Table 8.7 In what kind of neighborhood would you wish to live in?
The inhabitants are mostly Russians/Estonians
Around 75% of the inhabitants are
Russians/Estonians
Half of the inhabitants are Russians/Estonians
Around 25% of the inhabitants are
Russians/Estonians
Almost none of the inhabitants are
Russians/Estonians
Makes no difference
Don’t know
Total N
Estonian
Tallinn
KohtlaJärve
44.7
23.8
20.2
15.6
Russian
Tallinn
KohtlaJärve
6.3
18.7
3.4
9.5
3.5
0
10.0
2.2
31.4
4.3
11.8
2.0
0
.9
1.9
.7
28.4
3.1
257
45.9
1.7
231
49.8
2.9
207
52.5
4.9
305
Respondents were also asked to describe the economic situation of their neighborhoods.
There was a significant difference with respect to Estonian and Russian respondents,
however the size of the effect was small. The primary difference is that 18.1% of Russian
respondents described their neighborhood as upper class compared with only 10.1% among
Estonians. The majority of both Russians and Estonians described their neighborhood as
middle class (75.2; 73.6). Place of residence was significant for Estonian respondents.
100
While the majority of Estonians in Tallinn and Kohtla-Järve described their neighborhoods
as middle class (70%: 77.5%), 16.3% of respondents in Tallinn described their
neighborhood as upper-class compared with only 4.3% in Kohtla-Järve.
8.4 Participation
An important measure of social integration includes whether ethnic groups participate in
the same types of organizations. There was not much difference between the types of
activities that Estonians and Russians participate in. Both groups are very non-participant.
All respondents (512 Russians; 488 Estonians) answered the questions about the types of
activities they participate in. Over 99% of Estonians and Russians indicated that they did
not participate in women’s groups, employers organizations, or organizations geared
toward third world development, human rights or peace movements. Over 95% of
respondents from each ethnic group indicated that they did not participate in trade unions,
political parties, religious organizations, student unions, professional organizations,
organizations for parents at schools, or organizations geared toward social issues, ecology,
or animal rights. The only two types of organizations in which Estonians are Russians
indicated that they participate in are sports clubs and art or cultural organizations: 33.4% of
Estonian and 16.6% of Russian respondents indicated that they participate in sports clubs;
13% of Estonian and 7.4% of Russian respondents indicated that they participate in art or
cultural groups. The only category in which place of residence is significant is with respect
to sports teams: 33.6% of respondents in Tallinn indicated that they participate in sports
clubs or teams compared with 17.2% in Kohtla-Järve.
Russian respondents were also asked whether these activities were aimed primarily at the
Russian community. When asked whether they participated in organizations geared toward
their parents’ birth country over 99% of Russian respondents in both Tallinn and KohtlaJärve indicated that they did not. The only organizations that are geared toward the
Russian community are sports clubs or teams, religious organizations, political parties, art,
musical or cultural activities, and parents organizations in schools. The only organizations
that both Estonians and Russians participate in are sports clubs and art/cultural
organizations. With respect to sports clubs and teams, 43.2% of Russian respondents
(N=81) indicated that these were geared primarily toward the Russian community and
43.2% of Russian respondents indicated that they were not. With respect to art music and
cultural activities, 35.2% of Russian respondents (N=71) indicated that these were geared
primarily toward the Russian community and 40.8% indicated that they were not.
8.4.1 Willingness of Estonians and Russians to Interact Socially
Integration Monitoring 2005 reported that the willingness of Estonians to interact socially
with non-Estonians had grown and that this was a good indicator of increasing tolerance in
Estonian society. However when comparing young Estonians to Estonians as a whole in
1999, the report noted a decrease in willingness to interact on the part of young Estonians.
Integration Monitoring also found that Estonian Russians were more willing to interact
101
socially than ethnic Estonians: 90% of Estonian Russians indicated that they were willing
to live side-by-side with Estonians and to work together with them. Unlike the case of
young Estonians, the attitudes of young Russians did not differ significantly from the
attitudes of Russians as a whole. The situations in which both groups had a tendency to
reject social interaction was when working as an employee where the superior is a member
of the other ethnic group and being a patient of a doctor of the other ethnic group.
The TIES survey asked a number of questions that were intended to gauge the willingness
of Estonians and Russians to interact socially. When asked whether they go out to venues
where there is a lot of non-Estonian youth, the majority of Russians answered this question
affirmatively. Estonians respondents however were divided. Place of residence did have a
significant affect on responses to this question among Estonians with more respondents
from Kohtla-Järve (63.9%) than Tallinn (39.4%) indicating that they do visit these types of
venues.
Figure 8.4 Do you go out to venues where
Figure 8.5 Would you live on a street where
there are a lot of non-Estonian youth?
50% of residents were Estonian/Russian?
100
89,9
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
51,1
Percentages
Percentages
100
48,9
50
40
91,4
65,6
60
50
40
34,4
30
30
20
10,1
20
8,6
10
10
0
0
Estonian (N=481)
Russians (N=495)
Response categories
Yes
No
Estonian (N=479)
Russians (N=498)
Response categories
Yes
No
The TIES survey also asked respondents about their willingness to move to live on a street
where more than 50% of the inhabitants were members of the other ethnic group. Again
there is a significant difference between Russian respondents and Estonian respondents
with respect to this question. While the majority of respondents in each group responded
positively to this question, 65.6% of ethnic Estonians indicated a willingness to do so
compared with 91.4% of ethnic Russians. Place of residence was also significant among
ethnic Estonians with 84.8% in Kohtla-Järve indicating a willingness to live on a street
where a majority were ethnic Russians compared with 48.4% in Tallinn.
In addition to willingness to go to venues with non-Estonians, respondents were also asked
about their willingness to send their children to schools and hobby groups where there are
children of other ethnic backgrounds in significant numbers. On the whole Russian
102
respondents were more willing to send their children to these schools and hobby groups
than were Estonians. Whereas the majority of Russian respondents (81.1%) indicated that
they would send their child to a school where more than 50% of the pupils are ethnic
Estonians, only 60% of ethnic Estonian respondents indicated that they would send their
child to school where more than 25% of the students were Russian. There was also a weak
association between place of residence and responses among ethnic Estonians with slightly
more respondents in Kohtla-Järve (69.1%) responding to this question in the positive than
in Tallinn (49.8%).
Figure 8.6 Would you send your children to
School where more than 50% of pupils are
children of immigrants?
90
90
80
80
67,3
70
70
60
60
50
40
40
32,7
30
Percentages
Percentages
Figure 8.7 Would you send our children to
school where more than 25%/50% of pupils
are Russian/Estonian?
59
60
50
41
40
30
20
20
10
10
0
81,1
18,9
0
Estonian (N=477)
Russians (N=499)
Response categories
Yes
No
Estonian (N=481)
Russians (N=507)
Responce categories
Yes
No
With respect to sending children to kindergarten where there is a significant number of
children of the other ethnic group, significantly more Russian respondents (85%) responded
positively to this question than ethnic Estonians 57%. Again there was a weak association
between place of residence and responses to this question among ethnic Estonians with
slightly more respondents in Kohtla-Järve (66.1%) indicating positive responses to this
question than in Tallinn (48.1%). The difference between Russians and Estonians diminishes
sharply with responses to the question of hobby and leisure groups. The majority of both
Russians and Estonians indicate that they would be willing to have their children attend sports
clubs or hobby groups where the ethnic composition of the group is mixed.
103
Figure 8.8 Would you send your children to
kindergarten where more than 25%/50% of
pupils are Russian/Estonian?
Figure 8.9Would you send your children to
a sports or other hobby group
where25%/50% of pupils are Russian/
Estonian?
100
100
85
90
90
70
60
50
80
57
Percentages
Percentages
80
43
40
30
15
20
10
89,5
78
70
60
50
40
30
22
20
10,5
10
0
0
Estonian (N=481)
Russians (N=499)
Response categories
Yes
No
Estonian (N=477)
Russians (N=496)
Response categories
Yes
No
8.5 Conclusion
The purpose of this section was to look at how Estonians and Russians interact in terms of their
closest relationships: friends, partners, and neighbors; as well as their willingness to interact
socially. The initial results paint a mixed picture of the state of interaction in this field. A
positive trend can be seen with respect to friendships. While the majority of both Estonian and
Russian respondents indicated that they had mostly friends within their own ethnic circle during
secondary school, a greater percentage indicate that they currently have at least some friends of
the other ethnic group. However, best friendships tend to still be within the same ethnic circle. A
higher percentage of Russians in Kohtla-Järve indicated that their best friend was Estonian. This
may again be related to the fact that Russians in Tallinn feel a stronger need to remain within
their ethnic community. Not surprisingly Estonian respondents in Kohtla-Järve tend to have
more Russian friends, most likely owing to the demographic situation.
A much more thorough analysis of partner choice among respondents is needed. An initial look
at current partner choice shows that an overwhelming majority of Estonians tend to choose
partners who are born in Estonia and whose parents are also born in Estonia. By contrast more
Russians choose partners where their partner was born in another country, has a citizenship other
than Estonia and whose parents were born in Russia or elsewhere. However, Russian
respondents also choose partners with an ethnic Estonian background as well.
A higher percentage of Estonian respondents are currently living in neighborhoods where a
significant number of inhabitants are Russian than are Russians living in neighborhoods where a
significant number of inhabitants are Estonian. While the majority of respondents in both groups
104
were indifferent to the ethnic composition of neighborhoods, a large percentage of Estonians
indicate that they would like to live where the majority of inhabitants are Estonian. Responses
among Russians indicate a greater willingness to live where a significant number of respondents
are Estonian. More Estonian respondents in Tallinn would prefer to live among their own ethnic
group, whereas more Russian respondents in Kohtla-Järve preferred to live among their own
ethnic group. This reflects the current living situation of these groups and is consistent with the
demographic situation in these two cities.
These results are similar to the ones on the willingness of Estonians to interact with Russians.
The overwhelming majority of Russian respondents indicated that they would be willing to
frequent venues where non-Estonians were present in large numbers, to live on a street where
50% of the inhabitants were Estonian, and to send their children to kindergartens, schools and
hobby/sports clubs where 50% of the group were Estonian. However, when Estonians were
asked whether they would send their children to kindergartens, schools where only 25% of the
pupils were Russian only have of Estonian respondents indicated their willingness to do so and
only 50% of respondent indicated a willingness to attend venues with a lot of non-Estonian
youth. They were more positive about sending children to hobby/sports groups. Estonians were
also less willing to move to a street where more than 50% of the inhabitants were Russian. There
seems to be a desire among Estonian respondents to socialize within their own ethnic group to a
greater extent than is true of Russian respondents. This will be an important avenue to pursue in
future research on tolerance and on integration as a two-way process. These findings also hold
important implications for the Estonian integration program. The program has been criticized for
focusing too much on the Russian minority without enough programs aimed at increasing
tolerance among the Estonian community. Initial results from the TIES survey indicate that more
programs may need to be geared at changing these attitudes among Estonians.
The results of the TIES survey show that both groups are not participating in a number of
activities. Those activities in which they do participate in substantial numbers, sports teams and
art music and cultural activities, a significant number of Russian respondents indicated are also
activities which for them are geared primarily toward the Russian community. The results of the
TIES survey therefore indicate that along the measure of participation there is a very low level of
social integration among youth in Estonian society.
References
Allport, Gordon. 1979. The Nature of Prejudice, Cambridge: Perseus Books.
Bosswick, Wolfgang, Heckmann, F. 2006. Integration of migrants: Contribution on local and
regional authorities, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions
Gordon, M. M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. The Role of Race, Religion, and National
Origins, NY: Oxford University Press.
Jandt, Fred E. 1998. Intercultural Communication: An Introduction, Thousand Oaks, California;
London: Sage.
105
Munche, Peter and Charles Marske. 1981. Atomism and Social Integration. Journal of
Anthropological Research, 37:2, 158-171.
Rubel, Arthus, Kupferer, H. 1968. Perspectives on the atomistic-type society: introduction,
Human Organization 27:189-190.
Spielberg, J. 1968. Small Village Relations in Guatemala. A Case Study. Human Organization,
27: 205-11.
Waters, Mary and Tomas Jimenez. 2005. Assessing Immigrant Assimilation: New Empirical and
Theoretical Challenges. Annual Review of Sociology, 31: 105-25.
106
9. Collective identities of Russian and Estonian youth
Written and prepared by Gerli Nimmerfeldt 41
This chapter will address the socio-cultural and psychological dimension of integration by
focusing on the indicators for different group identifications. In theoretical approaches which
distinguish between different dimensions of the integration processes this aspect is often called
identificational integration, and in most cases it is defined as the feeling of belonging to, and
identification with, groups on ethnic, cultural, regional, local and/or national levels and with the
state (Bosswick and Heckmann 2006:10).
In this project “identity” is defined as a multi-component indicator for belonging to “groups” and
“communities”. Identities as references to “groups” are not mutually exclusive; an individual
identity is composed of multiple identities at different levels. The collective self is really a
network of identifications with different groups.
Jenkins argues that the process of identification involves the publicly offered external definition,
called social categorization, and the internal process or the (partial) acquisition or rejection of
identities, called internalization (Jenkins 2004). Thus one possibility is to explore identity via
self-categorization, which has been the focus of several empirical studies on the political and
cultural identity of minority groups and will be the basis for the following analysis.
The creation of multicultural society requires that both majority and minority identities
accommodate a variety of cultural, linguistic, and religious differences within the same social
space, and allow for mutual belonging to the same state and sociopolitical community. The aim
of the chapter is to find out which identity categories are used by youth for self identification and
to compare the identity structures of Estonian and Russian youth by analyzing which categories
are more strongly internalized as the basis for self-identification and which categories are more
weakly used or even rejected for self-identification.
The following analysis will be based primarily on the question (J1 42) asking respondents to
indicate the intensity of feelings of belonging simultaneously to a variety of identity categories,
41
Gerli Nimmerfeldt is a researcher at Institute of International and Social Studies, Tallinn University.
[email protected]
42
J1: People can think of themselves as members of various groups in the wider society. The following questions are about
how you think of yourself in this respect. I will read you a list of various groups in society. How strongly do you feel that you
107
including local, extraterritorial, civic, political, ethnic, and religious identity categories. The
primary task will be to analyze the strength and relevance of the different identity categories for
Estonians and Russians.
Besides analyzing the identity structure along ethnic dimensions, the differences and similarities
in identity structure within both ethnic groups mainly along age, sex and location (Tallinn vs IdaVirumaa), educational level, and for the Russian sample also citizenship status and parent’s
descent will be analyzed.
Table 9.1 shows the results of the set of similarly posed questions addressing the feelings of
belonging among Russian and Estonian youth. For each identity category presented in the
following table, differences in the strength of affiliation between Estonian and Russian
respondents proved to be statistically significant. First, the differences in attachment to local
community (respondents’ residence city) will be described. The second identity category that is
explained is European identity, which is internalized in remarkably different ways by Russian
and Estonian youth. Next differences in civic-political identity of Estonian citizens is described
and some context information on their citizenship situation is presented. The fourth section
focuses on religious identity and religiosity in general and the last identity category explored is
ethnic identity.
Table 9.1 Identification with different groups in society (by ethnic group)
Very strong
Strong
Moderate
Very
weak
Weak
Not at all
N
Est
64,5
24,3
10,9
0,2
-
-
485
Rus
27,6
42,7
25,0
3,3
0,6
0,8
508
Inhabitant of
Tallinn/KohtlaJärve/Jõhvi
Est
30,8
33,5
24,7
7,1
1,0
2,9
481
Rus
17,9
37,6
32,9
7,5
1,6
2,6
508
Estonian
citizen
Est
54,6
33,4
11,8
0,2
-
-
485
Rus
8,3
32,5
33,5
11,2
2,6
12,0
508
European
Est
18,0
29,0
33,3
14,3
2,9
2,5
483
Rus
5,0
15,2
33,5
18,4
7,5
20,4
505
Est
1,4/0,6
2,7/0,6
7,9/2,1
10,7/3,8
12,0/4,4
65,3/
88,5
484/
480
Rus
8,5
23,4
28,7
9,7
6,1
23,6
505
Estonian/
Russian
Religious
group
(Orthodox/
Catholic or
Protestant)
43
belong to these groups? INTERVIEWER GIVE CARD and ask for each item: To what extent do you feel…...
Russian/Estonian; Inhabitant of the city; Estonian citizen; European; Cosmopolitan; Orthodox/Lutheran and Catholic. Scale
used for evaluating the strength of the feelings of belonging was: very strongly; strongly; moderately; weakly; very weakly; not
at all.)
43
For Estonians there were two religious groups in the list. The first number indicates the feelings of belonging to
Lutherans and the second number to Catholics.
108
The importance and meaning of some categories will be analyzed more thoroughly, for example
the civic category: Estonian citizen. Vihalemm and Masso (2002a, 2003) argue that for Estonians
the state affiliation presumes an acquisition of some Estonian cultural traits, but Russians
associate it with formal citizenship, which offers some sense of social security. Other previous
studies indicate that the identity category of Estonian citizen is not rigidly connected to formal
citizenship status but also to wider sense of belonging to all the people living in Estonia
(Integration Monitoring 2005 44). Also the peculiar citizenship situation in Estonia will be
explained in more detail in order to aid in the interpretation of the results of the data analysis.
Religious identity will be analyzed together with other data collected on the religiosity of
respondents at the present time as well as during their childhood. Also, some historical
background on religiosity in Estonia will be given in this chapter, without which it’s hard to put
the results into context.
9.1 Local Identity
Of local identity categories, the respondents’ place of residence place was included as a category
for collective identity.
By comparing the results along ethnic groups, the analysis reveals that Estonians feel a bit more
strongly connected to their home city than do Russians: 64% of the Estonian youth compared to
56% of Russian youth, hold strong or very strong feelings of belonging to the city where they
live (Table 9.1). This does not mean that Russian youth feel weakly or not at all connected to
their place of residence, as the percentages for both groups are similar in this respect; only about
3% do not identify themselves with the home city and around 8-9% identify themselves weakly.
The main difference between the two ethnic groups is that among Estonians there are more
respondents who declare their feelings of belonging to be very strong while Russian respondents
more often declare their feelings of belonging to be more moderate (Table 9.1).
The survey in Estonia was conducted in three cities: Tallinn, Kohtla-Järve and Jõhvi, although
the initial plan was to have only two cities. The third city, Jõhvi was included in the study
because of the difficulty of finding enough Estonians at the eligible age living in Kohtla-Järve.
That is why 55 of the total 488 Estonian respondents were interviewed in Jõhvi. As Jõhvi is very
similar to Kohtla-Järve both demographically and structurally these two cities are treated in most
of the analysis together under the label Ida-Virumaa. When describing the local identity
categories Estonians all three cities are included into the analysis.
Comparing the results of TIES survey with previous studies it appears that the importance of
local identity in self-determination has grown remarkably during last 5 years. According to
survey data of 2002 45 only 33% of Estonians and 29% of Russian-speakers in Estonia indicated a
feeling of belonging to the city or county of residence (Vihalemm and Masso 2003:48). In this
survey, the strength of feelings was not measured so we cannot say whether the local identity has
44
Integration Monitoring 2005. Reseacrh report. Tallinn, Integration Foundation.
National survey „Me, the Media and the World“ was conducted in Dec 2002 and Jan 2003, N =1500 aged at 1574 years.
45
109
gotten stronger or weaker, but we can conclude that the relevance of local identity has grown in
self-categorization, as almost 90% of both Russian and Estonian respondents in our study
identify themselves with that category either strongly or moderately. There might be substantial
differences in the affiliation with place of residence, according to whether the respondent lives in
countryside or in the city; city as a local territorial unit might be more binding than smaller cities,
parishes or counties in countryside.
Looking at the strength of affiliation to other inhabitants of the same city the results show that for
the respondents living in Tallinn the feelings are stronger compared to those living in IdaVirumaa: 65% of respondents in Tallinn declare their feelings of belonging to Tallinn as strong
or very strong while only 55% of the respondents who live in Ida-Virumaa indicate the same
feelings toward their residence city (Table 9.2). Exploring this relationship along ethnic lines
turns out to be statistically significant only for Russians.
The results for Russians are somewhat surprising. Considering the background of Ida-Virumaa
and also Kohtla-Järve, which is often viewed as more of a “Russian” city than an “Estonian” one.
It would be reasonable to expect that Russian youth would feel more of an attachment to KohtlaJärve than to Tallinn. On the other hand, the Ida-Virumaa area in general is economically one of
the poorest areas in Estonia where living conditions are not highly evaluated. The low status of
the area compared to the prestige associated with the capital city might be one possible
explanation for the surprising results.
Table 9.2 The strength of feelings of belonging to city (place of residence)
Feelings of belonging to
Tallinn
Ida-Virumaa
Strongly or very strongly
65,2
55,0
Moderately
22,6
34,4
Weakly or very weakly
9,1
8,1
Not at all
3,0
2,5
460
529
N
Tallinn
KohtlaJärve
Jõhvi
Strongly or very strongly
61,4
51,5
-
Moderately
22,7
39,9
-
Weakly or very weakly
11,6
7,3
-
Not at all
4,3
1,3
-
207
301
-
Strongly or very strongly
68,4
55,7
72,2
Moderately
22,5
30,5
16,7
Weakly or very weakly
7,1
10,3
5,6
Not at all
2,0
3,4
5,6
253
174
54
Feelings of belonging to
Russians
N
Estonians
N
110
There are no statistically significant relationships between the respondent’s educational level and
the strength of local identity and that holds for true for both ethnic groups under study. Neither
do the distributions differ in a significant way by sex or age groups.
9.2 European Identity
In addition to local identity it is possible also to identify with both culturally and territorially
wider categories, such as the European category.
It is often said that the European Union is far from being a community with a common identity
and several authors doubt there is any reason to talk about European identity, at least not yet, as
the European people do not share a common language; they lack the memories of a common
history; and they do not take part in a common „European“ public sphere, all of which are
important for developing a common collective identity (Thomassen and Bäck 2008:2).
During Soviet times, “Europe” was a highly acknowledged idea in Estonia which stood for
freedom, democracy, and also prosperity. Becoming part of the West (again) was one of the
slogans in Estonia during the “national awakening” processes 20 years ago and identifying
oneself with Europe was, in a way, a counter-identity to the Soviet Union. European identity is
also decades later a relevant extra-territorial identity category present in people’s selfdesignations in Estonia. According to Eurobarometer 46, in 2004 58% of Estonian people
considered themselves as European in addition to being part of their nation, and 42% identified
themselves only with their own nation.
European identity can be viewed as a cultural identity – the feeling of belonging to a group of
people with shared attitudes, beliefs and values. At the same time, as Europe has become a
political community, identifying with Europeans could also be interpreted as considering one’s
self a citizen of European Union. The formation of the new European identity in Estonia –
related to the process of accession to the European Union - as an incorporation of a new political
or civic dimension into that collective identity, began as early as the start of the 1990s.
Qualitative studies have shown that the category European is connected with Estonia being part
of Europe, both historically as well as with becoming a member of the European Union in 2004
however the category is also used to describe cultural similarities, common values and similar
lifestyles 47.
Vihalemm and Masso argue that the opening up of the geo-cultural space of Estonia has created a
supra-national, global pattern of self-designation. According to the survey data on which their
analysis is based, almost half of the respondents identified themselves as Europeans in 2003.
They conclude that the European identity has some connection with territorial and civic self46
Eurobarometer 2004.
Qualiatative studies on Estonian and Russian youth in Tallinn and Maardu, conducted by IISS respectively in
2006 and 2007. Look Nimmerfeldt ( 2006) and Nimmerfeldt, et al. (2007). Look also Vihalemm and Masso
(2002a).
47
111
designation, but has weak ethno-linguistic connotations. Based on these results, they anticipate
the extraterritorial identity category to be one possible common identity basis for both Estonians
and Russians in Estonia (Vihalemm and Masso 2007).
More recent studies indicate that this might not be the case. According to the TIES data there
appears to be a significant difference along ethnic and cultural lines regarding how strongly
people identify themselves on the European level. Estonian respondents feel that they belong to
Europe much more strongly than Russian youth: 47% of Estonians declare their identification
with Europeans to be strong or very strong compared to 20% among Russian respondents (Table
9.3).
Table 9.3: The strength of feelings of belonging to Europeans by ethnic groups, 2006-2008
Strongly or very
strongly
Moderately
Weakly or very
weakly
Not at all
N
2007/2008 48
Est
Rus
47,0
20,2
33,3
33,5
17,2
25,9
2,5
20,4
483
505
2006 Dec 49
Est
Rus
37,2
29,5
41,0
31,8
20,1
25,0
1,7
13,6
233
88
By drawing a parallel to the survey data from 2006, the affiliation with Europeans seems to
have got stronger among Estonian youth and weaker among Russians over the last couple of
years (Table 9.3).
The TIES data also revealed differences in the strength of affiliation by several other
demographic variables except sex and highest educational level completed by the respondents.
Differences by place of residence are as follows: Estonian respondents in Tallinn affiliate a bit
more strongly to the extraterritorial group of Europeans than Estonians in Ida-Virumaa. The
same trend appears among Russian respondents (Table 9.4), however for this group the
association between strength of feelings of belonging and place of residence is not statistically
significant.
Table 9.4 The strength of feelings of belonging to Europeans by ethnic groups and place of
residence
Strongly or
very strongly
Moderately
Weakly or
very weakly
Not at all
N
Tallinn
Est
Rus
50,0
21,3
35,3
38,2
12,7
25,0
2,0
15,5
252
207
Ida-Virumaa
Est
Rus
43,7
19,5
31,2
30,2
22,1
26,5
3,0
23,8
231
298
48
TIES survey data
Data form survey prepared by research team in IISS and conducted in the framework of Estonian Science
Foundation Grant No. 6135 „Semiotic approach for explaining the formation of public opinion on EU integration”,
N=1000, aged 15-75 yr. In the table the data is presented for age group corresponding to TIES survey, i.e. aged 1835 yr.
49
112
Also citizenship status is significantly related to feelings of belonging to the European category
Russians with Estonian citizenship feel a stronger belonging to Europeans than than do citizens
of Russia or respondents with undetermined citizenship status (Table 9.5).
Table 9.5 The strength of feelings of belonging to Europeans by citizenship status 50 (Russians)
Estonian citizenship
Russian citizenship
No citizenship
23,0
36,8
25,4
14,8
291
17,6
25,5
37,3
19,6
51
15,6
28,6
24,5
31,3
147
Strongly or very strongly
Moderately
Weakly or very weakly
Not at all
N
These results indicate that for Russian youth, the European identity is more of a civic identity
category than it is a cultural identification. A recent qualitative study 51 on different identity
dimensions confirmed the hypothesis that for Russians the connection to Europe and affiliation
to Europeans is based on formal connection to the Estonian state through citizenship. Culturally
the European identity for Russians is rather a counter-identity category along East-West
dimension (Vetik and Nimmerfeldt 2008).
Significantly related to the strength of feelings of belonging to Europeans among both ethnic
groups under study is also the respondent’s age. Both Russian and Estonian respondents of
younger age group (18-25 yr) feel more strongly to belong to that category than do the older
respondents aged 26-35 yr (Table 9.6).
Table 9.6 The strength of feelings of belonging to Europeans by ethnic and age groups
Strongly or
very strongly
Moderately
Weakly or
very weakly
Not at all
N
18-25 year
Est
Rus
46,2
21,8
38,7
38,4
12,4
25,8
2,7
14,0
225
271
26-35 year
Est
Rus
47,7
18,4
28,7
27,8
21,3
26,1
2,3
27,8
258
234
9.3 Civic Identity and Citizenship
The third identity dimension is civic identity, defined as identification with the citizens of
Estonia. As expected, among Estonians the feeling of belonging to Estonian citizens is much
stronger than among Russian youth. While 54,6% of Estonian respondents stated their feelings
50
The respondents with other country’s citizenship except Russian have been excluded from the analysis as the
group was too small (N=13).
51
5 Focus Group interviews conducted in June 2008 among Estonians and Russians in Tallinn, Narva and Tartu by
a research team at IISS.
113
of belonging to Estonian citizens as very strong only 8,3% of Russians evaluated their
affiliation to be very strong. Although an equal percentage of Russians and Estonians identify
themselves strongly with Estonian citizens – one third of both Estonian and Russian
respondents feel themselves to belong to that group strongly. Remarkable differences appear in
the other side of the scale. None of the Estonian respondents feel very weakly or not at all
connected to the citizenry of Estonia and only one respondent indicated their affiliation to be
weak. Among Russians, 12% of respondents feel no belonging to this group and 14% only
weakly or very weakly feel themselves to be part of the citizenry (Table 9.7).
Table 9.7 The strength of feelings of belonging to Estonian citizens by ethnic groups
N
Very strong
Strong
Moderate
Weak
Very weak
Not at all
Estonians
54,6
33,4
11,8
0,2
-
-
485
Russians
8,3
32,5
33,5
11,2
2,6
12,0
508
The main explanation behind these results is the citizenship situation in Estonia. Based on the
statistics of Population Register, published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs 52, the number of
Estonian citizens living in Estonia in March 2008 was 1 142 650 (in addition, 46 863 Estonian
citizens live abroad). By knowing the numbers of people who have Estonian citizenship, it is
possible to calculate the magnitude of other ethnicities among, if we assume that all the ethnic
Estonians are also Estonian citizens. So, if 921 062 ethnic Estonians are living in Estonia on
01.01.2007, then 221 588 or 19% of Estonian citizens are not ethnic Estonians.
However, the fact that there are Estonian citizens with other ethnic background is not what
makes the citizenship situation in Estonia uncommon, but the fact that only 84% of the
population holds the citizenship of their residence country. Hence 16% of the population is
Estonian residents without Estonian citizenship. Almost half of them are residents with
undetermined citizenship and the other half are residents with the citizenship of another state
(Table 9.8). Among the latter the biggest group is composed of citizens of the Russian
Federation (91 908, i.e. 6,7% of Estonian population has Russian citizenship) 53.
Table 9.8 Estonian population by citizenship status
Estonian citizenship
1 142 650
83,8 %
undetermined citizenship
111 291
8,2 %
other citizenship
109 644
8,0 %
Total population
1 363 585
Source: Estonian Ministry of the Interior, Population Register
100%
54
52
Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Estonia Today: Citizenship” Fact Sheet April 2008.
According to statistic of Estonian Citizenship and Migration Board the number of Russian citizens in Estonia
who have valid residence permits is even higher 95 896. Also the number of residents with undetermined
citizenship status holding valid residence permit in Estonia at 01.07.2008 is a bit higher reaching to 113 142.
54
Published by Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Estonia Today: Citizenship” Fact Sheet April 2008.
53
114
The roots of this situation, is the legislation on Estonian citizenship which is based on the
principle of blood relationship (ius sanguinis) and on the principle of legal continuity. After
independence was restored in 1991 on the basis of the legal continuity of statehood, Estonia also
reinstated the rights of its legitimate citizens. In 1992, the Citizenship Act of 1938 was reenforced and according to that Act all persons who were Estonian citizens before 16 June 1940
and their descendants were considered to be Estonian citizens. According to the Estonian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, roughly two-thirds of the 1,5 million Estonian inhabitants were
restored Estonian citizenship in 1992. The Rest of the people living in Estonia at that time could
obtain Estonian citizenship through the naturalization process 55. Since1992, 148 175 persons in
total has done that 56 (Figure 9.1).
Figure 9.1 Acquiring Estonian Citizenship by naturalization from 1992 to 2008
Source: Estonian Citizenship and Migration Board
At the same time, all Estonian residents, who had been Soviet citizens, had the right to register
themselves as citizens of Russia, the USSR’s successor state, or to choose any other citizenship.
As a result, the share of persons of undetermined citizenship has decreased since 1992 from
32% to 8% in 2008 as a result of an increase in the share of persons having Estonian citizenship
and an increase in persons choosing Russian citizenship (Figure 9.2).
55
56
Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Estonia Today: Citizenship” Fact Sheet April 2008.
Estonian Citizensip and Migration Board
115
Figure 9.2 Estonian population by citizenship status, 1992-2008
84
2008
8
8
2003
81
12
7
1999
80
13
7
1992
68
0%
20%
Estonian ci tizenship
32
40%
60%
undetermined citizenship
80%
0
100%
other countries’ ci tizenship
Sources: for years 1992 and 1999, Citizenship and Migration Board, for years 2003 and 2008, Ministry
of the Interior, Population Register published by Published by Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
“Estonia Today: Citizenship” Fact Sheet April 2008.
One reason behind the large number of non-citizens residing in Estonia today is the nature of
the naturalization process by which a person desiring Estonian citizenship must pass two
examinations: the Estonian Language examination and the examination on the knowledge of the
Constitution of the Republic of Estonia and the Citizenship Act. As Estonian language
knowledge among non-Estonians was poor at the time of independence and didn’t improve
remarkably in the following years, the requirement of passing the Estonian language exam has
been the biggest obstacle for persons with underdetermined citizenship status to become
Estonian citizens and one of the reasons behind choosing the citizenship of the Russian
Federation.
Albeit several amendments to the Citizenship Act have simplified the naturalization procedure,
especially for young people (second and/or third generation). However, in 2000, there were still
29 801 persons under age 30 who had long-term residents permit and 3 770 of the same age
group who had temporary residents permit. The number of young people under the age of 30
with no citizenship by January 2007 was 33 571. The share of persons with undetermined
citizenship among younger people is still lower than it is among people over the age of 30
(Table 9.9).
116
Table 9.9 Persons with undetermined citizenship by age and type of residents permit, 2007
January
Age
Temporary residents permit
Long-term residents permit
0-14
15-29
30-44
45-59
60-74
75-89
90-104
450
3 320
3 913
4 291
989
277
23
4 333
24 801
29 495
31 805
14 966
6 788
348
Total
13 263
112 536
Source: Office of the Minister for Population and Ethnic Affair.
In the sample of Russian respondents, the largest group was made up of those holding Estonian
citizenship (58%). Second largest group is comprised of youth with undetermined citizenship
status. In our sample, 151 Russians do not have any kind of citizenship, i.e. almost 30% of the
Russian respondents. The rest of the sample had either Russian (10%) or some other country’s
citizenship (2,6%). Three people chose not to answer this question (Table 9.10). Of the 13
people having other than Estonian or Russian citizenship, only four also specified the country (3
people having Latvian and 1 person having Lithuanian citizenship).
Table 9.10 Russian respondents by citizenship status
N
%
Estonian citizenship
Russian citizenship
Other country’s citizenship
No citizenship
294
51
13
151
57,8
10
2,6
29,7
Total
509
100
General trends in citizenship status described above for the population of non-Estonians living in
Estonia are also supported by our study. The number of Estonian citizens is higher in the younger
age group of 18-25 years compared to the older age group of 26-30 years old (respectively 64%
and 51%). The percentage of non-citizens is almost two times larger in the older group of Russian
respondents than in the younger one (respectively 20,4% and 40,4%) (Table 9.11).
Table 9.11 Citizenship status of Russian respondents by age groups
Estonian citizenship
Russian citizenship
Other country’s citizenship
No citizenship
N
18-25 years old
26-35 years old
63,9
12,4
3,3
20,4
50,6
7,2
1,7
40,4
274
235
117
Estonian citizenship can be acquired either by birth or through naturalization. In the sample of
our survey 133 Russian respondents, that make 46% of the Russians holding Estonian
citizenship, have acquired it by birth and 54% have received it through naturalization.
The citizenship status and the feeling of belonging to the group of Estonian citizens are
significantly related and citizenship was the variable most strongly correlated with the civic
identity indicator. The strong relationship between these two variables has been demonstrated
also by earlier studies and is thus not surprising According to Integration Monitoring 2005 57
there are three times more people who firmly consider themselves to belong to Estonian citizens
among non-Estonian respondents with Estonian citizenship compared to respondents without
citizenship or with another country’s citizenship.
Results of our study also indicate that Russians who have Estonian citizenship feel much more
strongly that they belong to the Estonian citizenry when compared to Russians with other or no
citizenship (Table 9.12).
Table 9.12 The strength of feelings of belonging to Estonian citizens by citizenship status
(Russians)
Estonian citizen
Strongly or very strongly
Moderately
Weakly or very weakly
Not at all
N
Citizenship status
Other country’s
Russian citizen
citizen
No citizenship
52
36
10
2
24
33
19
24
15
39
15
31
26
28
19
27
293
51
13
148
But the relationship between citizenship status and the strength of affiliation with Estonian
citizens is far from being one-to-one. While among Estonian youth (presumably having
acquired Estonian citizenship by birth 58) 88% feel that they belong to the Estonian citizenry
strongly or very strongly. The percentage with strong or very strong feelings of belonging
among Russian youth having Estonian citizenship is only 52%; 36% of Russians who are
Estonian citizens feel to belong to citizenry moderately, 10% weakly or very weakly and 2% do
not feel that they belong to that group at all (Table 9.12).
The ways Estonian citizenship has been acquired, either by birth or through naturalization, do
not determine the strength of feelings of belonging of young Russians with Estonian citizenship
57
Integration Monitoring is a regular nationwide survey ordered by the Integration Foundation for analyzing the
integration processes in Estonian society. In 2005 the survey covered 1000 respondents aged 15-75 of whom 340
were from other ethnic groups than Estonians, mostly Russians. In addition, a sample of 200 young non-Estonians
aged 15-29 years was interviewed.
58
Estonian citizenship is acquired by birth if at least one of the parents of the child holds Estonian citizenship at the
time of the birth of the child. The requirements for respondent to be interviewed as the target group of Estonians
were that both her/his parents are born in Estonia and she/he clearly identifies herself/himself by ethnicity as
Estonian.
118
to the category of Estonian citizens. At the same time 26% of Russians with no citizenship, 24%
of Russian citizens, and 15% of other country’s citizens stated strong or very strong affiliation
with Estonian citizens. These results refer to the fact that the collective identity category of
citizenry is not always defined by legal citizenship status only. It might be alternatively
conceived as a group of people living in the country and the society that they are part of. Stated
feelings of belonging may also reflect the desired belonging to that group. The respondents who
did not have Estonian citizenship were asked whether they plan to acquire it in the next two
years: 20% of these respondents said that they have firm plans to do that; 20% said that they are
probably going to acquire Estonian citizenship in next two years; 27% of respondents without
Estonian citizenship were undecided; 16% are probably not going to seek Estonian citizenship
in the next two year; and 17% are certainly not going to acquire it. If we look at feelings of
belonging to Estonian citizens by the intention of gaining Estonian citizenship we see that 34%
of respondents who do plan to acquire citizenship feel strongly or very strongly affiliated with
the citizenry, while only 13% of those who have no intention of applying declared their
feelings of belonging to be strong.
The strength of affiliation with Estonian citizens differed significantly by the place of residence,
but only for the Russian sample. Namely, Russians living in Tallinn feel more strongly affiliated
with Estonian citizens than Russians living in Kohtla-Järve. After controlling this relationship
for the citizenship status of respondents the relationship turns out to be not statistically
significant, indicating that the reason behind the differences in feelings of belonging are in most
part explained by the fact that among Tallinn residents the share of Estonian citizens (68%) is
higher than among respondents living in Kohtla-Järve (50%). At the same time, the percentage
of respondents without any citizenship (36%) is higher in the sample for Kohtla-Järve compared
with the 21% of respondents living in Tallinn who have undetermined citizenship status (Table
9.13).
Table 9.13 Citizenship status and affiliation to Estonian citizens by the city of residence
(Russians)
Feeling of belonging to Estonian
citizens
Strongly or very strongly
Moderately
Weakly or very weakly
Not at all
City of residence
Tallinn
49
29
12
10
N
Kohtla-Järve
35
36
15
14
207
Citizenship status
301
City of residence
Tallinn
68
9
2
21
Estonian citizenship
Russian citizenship
Other country’s citizenship
No citizenship
N
Kohtla-Järve
50
11
3
36
206
303
119
Besides citizenship status, another significant difference in feelings of belonging to Estonian
citizens was found between the two age groups. Namely, younger Russians feel more strongly
affiliated (48,5%) with Estonian citizens than do Russians aged 26-35 years (31,8%). The share
of respondents who do not feel any connection with the citizenry is also higher among 26-35
years old (15,3%) compared to the younger group (9,2%).
9.4 Religious Identity and Religiosity
In Western European societies, religion is one of the main issues affecting the integration of
second generation non-Europeans. Islam has become an important boundary marker in both
insider and outsider group identities. It plays a significant role in identity building for youth
with immigrant backgrounds as well as serving as the dominant basis for differentiating the
outsiders from members of host communities. What adds the tension to interethnic relations and
attitudes towards immigrants is the threat Islam poses to the culture of the receiving society.
Religion in Estonia has not been part of the integration discourse, as differences in religious
identity have not been related to the tensions in interethnic relations. Though Estonians and
Russians clearly are adherents to different religions, Estonians mostly to Lutheranism and
Russians to Russian Orthodoxy, the percentage of religious people in both groups is not big and
religion is considered to be part of one’s private life and is not publicly discussed.
As far as religion is concerned, Estonia is famous for the relatively high level of secularization
in Estonian society and also for its very liberal legislation on religion 59. According to the
Constitution of the Republic of Estonia, everyone has freedom of conscience, religion and
thought. The Constitution also states that there is no state church, thus establishing the
separation of church and state. Membership in churches or religious organizations is voluntary.
All people are free to engage in acts of worship, in public or in private, as long as this does not
impair public order, health or morals 60.
The level of the secularization in Estonian society was shown in the census taken in 2000 when
all people over 15 year were asked to state their religious preferences and only 31,8% claimed
that they were followers of a particular religion. Of these, the majority were Lutherans and
Russian Orthodox.
The largest religious denomination in Estonia is the Estonian Evangelical
Lutheran Church. According to the last Population Census, 13,6% of the whole population
indicated that they were Lutheran, and the majority of this group were Estonians. Only 1,5% of
religious Russians were Lutheran. Instead the majority (92%) of Russians indicated that they
were Russian Orthodox (Table 9.14).
59
60
Encyclopedia about Estonia: Religion. Estonian Institute. http://www.estonica.org/
Constitution of the Republic of Estonia, § 40
120
Table 9.14 Religion followed among Estonians and Russians in 2000, (%)
Main religions followed:
Estonians
Russians
Lutheranism
80,4
1,5
Orthodoxy
10,2
91,7
Baptism
2,6
0,7
-
2,1
Old believers
N
181 229
114 210
Source: Statistics Estonia, Population Census 2000
According to the census data, Estonians are more indifferent to religion than Russians: 38,7% of
Russian population in Estonia said that they are religious, while only 24,3% of Estonians
indicated the same; 38,2% of Estonians said that they are entirely disinterested in religion
compared to the share of people with no interest in religion among Russians which was 26,5%
(Table 9.15).
Table 9.15 Religiosity and religion followed among Estonians and Russians in 2000, (%)
Estonians
Russians
Adherent to certain religion
24,3
38,7
Indifferent in religion
38,2
26,5
Atheist
5,5
7,8
Don’t know how to answer
15,3
13,4
Refuses to answer
9,2
5,7
Attitudes towards religion
unknown
7,5
7,9
N
745 671
294 827
Source: Statistics Estonia, Population Census 2000
In our study, we also asked Estonian and Russian youth whether they are religious at the present
moment and our results present somewhat higher percentages among both groups; 38% of all
the respondents indicated that they are religious. However, only 15% of respondents aged 18-35
years stated that they were raised according to a certain religion. A similar variation in
religiosity along ethnic groups as was revealed in the Census data was supported in the TIES
study. There are almost three times more religious youth among Russians compared to
Estonians (respectively 58% and 19%) (Table 9.16).
Table 9.16 Religiosity of Estonian and Russian respondents
Are you religious?
Russians
Estonians
Total N
Yes
58
19
38
No
42
81
62
N
485
484
969
121
Most of the Russians (94%) who reported being religious at the present moment declared
themselves to be Russian Orthodox. The picture was not that homogenous among Estonian
youth who considered themselves to be religious: 23% of them indicated being Protestant; 17%
Catholic; and 11% Russian Orthodox. The however group, however among religious Estonian
youth reported that they practice some other 61. As there was no specification of the other type of
religion asked in the questionnaire we do not know what their actual religious affiliation is.
Another trend that was revealed by the Census data as characteristic to the whole population is
also supported by the TIES data. Namely, the proportion of religiously active people is actually
very small. Although official statistics imply one congregation for every 2700 inhabitants, only
16% of the population has formalized their ties to a specific congregation.
Most Estonians do not belong formally to any religious organization and only 4% of the
population participated in weekly religious services 62.
Only 12% of Russian respondents and 7% of Estonians, who reported that they are religious,
actually go to church or attend religious services once or twice a month. Only 3,6% of Russian
and 10% of Estonian respondents indicated that they attend church or religious services weekly
or more often. Most of the youth in both ethnic groups go to church never or rarely (Table 9.17)
and here the difference between two ethnic groups turns out to be statistically non-significant.
Table 9.17 Religious activity of Russian and Estonian respondents
Russians
Estonians
Total N
Never
8
10
9
Rarely
57
50
55
Only on religious holidays
19
23
20
Once or twice a month
12
7
11
Weekly or more often
4
10
5
280
90
599
How often do you go to church, attend religious
63
services or meetings ?
N (religious respondents)
The roots of secularilism in Estonia lay both in faraway history and in the recent Soviet legacy.
Estonians were Christianized by the Teutonic Knights in the thirteenth century. Although
Christianity first came to Estonia in the 11th century, missionary work by the Roman Catholic
Church did not begin until late in the 12th century. Estonians were not eager to abandon their
ancient folk religion and traditional beliefs and they resisted the crusading knights, and their
religion, because of the brutal manner in which it was imposed. During the Reformation,
Lutheranism spread, and the church was officially established in Estonia in 1686. The Roman
Catholic institutional order lasted for 300 years and was abolished by the Reformation in the
1520s. Since then, the language of worship became Estonian, and a need for religious literature
in the native language was established. Despite the changes brought by the Reformation,
61
Answer categories to the question „What religion do you practise?” were as follows: a) Catholic, b) Protestant, c)
Othodox, d) Islam, e) Judaism, f) Other.
62
Encyclopedia about Estonia: Religion. Estonian Institute. http://www.estonica.org/
63
With specification „not including weddings, funerals, and other family or social events” read out by interviewer.
122
Estonians still tended to remain not very religious because religion was associated with German
feudal rule and Estonians were forced to join either the Catholic and Lutheran church at the
behest of German overlords 64.
Christianity as an institution remained dominated by Baltic Germans until the time of Estonian
independence. Jakob Aunver (2003, quated in Janis Cakars (2003)) has noted that religion was
an issue in the Estonian “national awakening” (although, late coming) and that earnest efforts
were put into the Estonianization of the Lutheran church only during the independence period.
Therefore, it is at this time that the dominant religion of the previous 400 years truly became
part of Estonian culture. In the 1920’s, the Lutheran Church grew to be the largest church in
Estonia. The second largest religious group was the Russian Orthodox Church. Among the other
largest confessions were the Baptists, Evangelical Christians and Methodists.
The Soviet takeover of Estonia had a damaging effect on religious life in Estonia. The official
atheistic policies aimed to eliminate religious institutions at every level of society. By means of
repressive measures, both churches and the Christian faith were banned, Church property was
confiscated, and the Theological Faculty at Tartu University was closed 65. The Soviet Marxist
ideology of atheism was implemented particularly forcefully in the 1960s. Young people were
indoctrinated in Soviet rites and rituals. This atheistic indoctrination succeeded; the majority of
the younger generation was estranged from religion, and the number of religious services was
dramatically reduced. Religion and religious institutions were marginalized in Estonian
society 66.The church lost over two thirds of its clergy during Soviet times. Though some of the
church services were tolerated, such as Sunday church services and presiding over funerals, by
the 1970s, less than 10% of the population openly admitted to being religious 67.
Since 1988, during the singing revolution, religion again played a role in Estonian national
and cultural identity. Religion came to represent a form of counter-identity, an opposition to the
official Soviet ideology. V. Stanley Vardys (1987, quoted in Janis Cakars (2003)) argues that
though religion was not very important for Latvian and Estonian as it was for Lithuanian
national consciousness and dissent, Catholicism and Lutheranism, as examples of Western
Christianity, were marks of cultural distinction with long historical traditions that set the Baltic
states apart from their eastern neighbors and that religion provided an alternative to communist
ideology and a link to the western world. After regaining independence in 1991, spiritual life in
Estonia was also revived. By the year 2000, seven churches, eight congregational associations
(totaling 458 congregations), 60 individual congregations and one monastery had been
registered with the Registry of Churches at the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In addition to these
registered organizations, some religious associations had registered themselves as faith-based
associations, others as non-profit organizations and still others have deemed it unnecessary to
register with the state 68.
64
Webpage of Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church; Encyclopedia about Estonia: Religion. Estonian Institute.
http://www.estonica.org/
65
Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church http://www.eelk.ee/english.php
66
Encyclopedia about Estonia: Religion. Estonian Institute. http://www.estonica.org/
67
Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Estonia Today: Churches and Congregations. Fact Sheet October 2005.
68
Encyclopedia about Estonia: Religion. Estonian Institute. http://www.estonica.org/
123
Today, church attendance, which had seen a surge coinciding with the independence movement
in the early 1990s, has decreased significantly. According to the last Population and Housing
Census held in 2000, only 31,8% of the population claimed any religious affiliation. There is an
explicit relationship between age and a person’s religiosity; the older the group, the more
religious people that are found. Among younger people, aged 20-34 years only 19,6% said they
follow a certain religion.
A similar association between age and religiosity was found for Estonian respondents in our
study but nor for the Russian sample. Among Russian respondents, there is even a more
respondents who claimed to be religious at the present moment in the younger age group, but
the relationship between these two variables was not statistically significant for Russian sample
(Table 9.18).
Table 9.18 Religiosity by ethnic and age groups
Are you religious?
18-25 yr
26-35 yr
Yes
No
Total N
Estonians
14,1
85,9
227
Russians
60,1
39,9
258
Estonians
22,6
77,4
257
Russians
55,1
44,9
227
The TIES data also confirms that people who grew up during the Soviet period tend not to be
very religious. During the survey, the respondents were asked whether they were raised
according to certain religion or not: 24% of Russians and 5% of Estonians were raised in
religiously (Table 9.19).
Table 9.19 Religious upbringing of Russian and Estonian respondents
Were you raised according
to certain religion?
Russians
Estonians
Total N
Yes
24
5
15
No
76
95
85
N
508
486
994
The way one was raised plays a significant role in young people’s self-identification on the
basis of religion: 84% of the respondents who were raised according to a certain religion
declared themselves to be religious and on the other hand 70% of the respondents who were not
raised according to the beliefs of a specific religion do not consider themselves to be religious at
the present moment.
The survey also asked how often the respondents’ parents were engaged in religious activities:
47% of all respondents said that their parents never went to church or attended any religious
services or meetings; 5% said their parents went once or twice a month; and only 1% declared
that they went every Sunday. The difference in religiosity between Estonians and Russians
religiosity comes out clearly in these results: 37% of Russian respondents compared with 58%
of Estonians said that their parents never went to church or attended religious services (Table
124
9.20). The higher level of religious activity among the parents of Russian respondents supports
the previous results about how upbringing has an impact on one’s religiosity later in life.
Table 9.20 Religious activity of Russian and Estonian respondents’ parents
When you were little, how often did your parents go to
69
church, attend religious services or meetings ?
Russians
Estonians
Total N
Never
36,7
58,0
47,1
Only on religious holidays
54,0
39,1
46,7
Once or twice a month
7,1
2,3
4,8
Every Sunday
1,6
0,6
1,1
More than once a week
0,6
-
0,3
N
504
483
987
Young people today seem to be a bit more religiously active than their parents as only 9% of the
respondents who indicated they are religious never go to church or attend religious services;
55% said that they go rarely; and 20% only on religious holidays (Table 9.17, page 15). Hence
the number of young people regularly going to church is not that different from their parents’
generation; 11% of youth who said they are religious attend church or services once or twice a
month; and 5% go once or more a week.
In the survey, respondents were asked about their identification with different religious groups
in society: Orthodox in the Russian questionnaire and Lutheran and Catholic in the Estonian
questionnaire. Remarkable differences in attachment to religious groups between Estonian and
Russian respondents are shown in the Table 9.21: 32% of Russian respondents feel a belonging
to Orthodox people, strongly or very strongly, while among Estonian respondents, only very
few declared strong feelings of belonging to either Lutheran or Catholic people.
Table 9.21 The strength of feelings of belonging to religious groups by ethnic groups
Russians
Estonians
Orthodox
Lutheran
Catholic
Strongly or very strongly
31,9
4,1
1,3
Moderately
28,7
7,9
2,1
Weakly or very weakly
15,8
22,7
8,1
Not at all
23,6
65,3
88,5
N
505
484
480
The religious identity category seems to include also a cultural and or ethnic connotation for
both Estonian and Russian youth. As the results indicate, self-identification with religious
groups is not strictly related to one’s own religiosity, as there are more people feeling affiliation
with these groups than there are religious respondents in the sample. While 42% of Russian
respondents are not currently religious only 24% of the Russian respondents indicated that they
do not feel a sense of belonging to Orthodox people. Similarly, 81% of Estonian respondents
69
With specification „not including weddings, funerals, and other family or social events” read out by interviewer.
125
are not currently religious, however only 65% indicated that they do not feel a sense of
belonging Lutherans at all. The category Catholic does not present the basis for identification
for Estonians in the same way as the category Lutherans.
Despite the above mentioned remark, the religiosity of respondents is significantly associated
with the strength of feelings of belonging to religious groups. Religious respondents clearly feel
much more strongly affiliated with religious groups (Table 9.22).
Table 9.22 The strength of feelings of belonging to religious groups by ethnic groups and the
religiosity of respondent
Russians
Are you religious?
Feelings of belonging to Orthodox
Yes
No
Strongly or very strongly
Moderately
Weakly or very weakly
Not at all
51,6
35,4
6,1
6,9
8,4
21,2
29,1
41,4
N
277
203
Estonians
Are you religious?
Feelings of belonging to Lutherans
Yes
No
Strongly or very strongly
Moderately
Weakly or very weakly
Not at all
14,6
23,6
25,8
36,0
1,8
4,3
22,0
71,9
89
391
N
Respondents from Tallinn tend to identify themselves with religious groups more strongly than
respondents from Ida-Virumaa and this applies both for Estonian and Russian respondents.
The sex and educational level of respondents makes no significant difference in feelings of
belonging to religious groups. Age played a significant role only for Estonians and in case of
feelings of belonging to Lutherans: older respondents tended to be more strongly affiliated with
Lutherans than the respondents aged 18-25 years.
9.5 Ethnic Identity
In the survey, the ethnic categories that were included are “Estonian” and “Russian”
respectively in Estonian and Russian language questionnaires. Identifications with these groups
are supposed to mark ethno-cultural belonging and are analyzed as indicators of a respondent’s
ethnic identity.
According to TIES data, the ethnic identification is much stronger among Estonian respondents
than Russians: 89% of Estonians feel a sense of belonging to their ethnic group strongly or very
strongly, while 70% of Russian respondents indicate the same level of belonging to their ethnic
126
group (Table 9.23). At the same time, affiliation to ethnic groups for both Russian and Estonian
respondents are the strongest compared with other identity categories.
Table 9.23 The strength of feelings of belonging to ethnic groups among Estonian and Russian
respondents
Strongly or very strongly
Moderately
Weakly or very weakly
Not at all
N
Russians
Estonians
70,3
25,0
3,9
0,8
508
88,9
10,9
0,2
485
Vihalemm and Masso (2004) argue that, in general, the territorial, national and political
identification among the Estonian population is low compared to the identification with family
and everyday social networks. The exception is higher ethnic identity (feelings of belonging to
one’s ethnic group), which is especially high among Estonians. Russians in Estonia do not
identify themselves with the ethno-cultural category “Russian” that strongly. In 2003 70, 79% of
Russian-speakers in Estonia identified themselves as Russian, and 74% as Russian language
speakers.
During Soviet times, ethnic background was not the main basis for self-definition (Brubaker
1996). The main markers of identity were politics and ideology which created a sense of civil
and political unity with the state and among the citizens of Soviet Republics.
Before restoration Estonian independence, Estonians were identifying themselves as members
of an ethnic group, while Russians preferred the category “Soviet”. Soviet identity was
regarded as a combination of political and civic identities, relying on a certain ideology and
value system, common experience, history, newly formed traditions, symbols and norms,
semantic space and communicational instrumentation. It defined the place and role of the state,
and the population within the state. Ideology rather than culture was constructed as a main
marker of belonging to the in-group. Soviet identity co-existed alongside the ethnic identities of
the Soviet Republics but the Russian ethno-cultural identity was not expressed until 1987
(Jakobson 2002:182).
Based on an analysis done by Vihalemm and Masso (2002b) it is possible to conclud that
during the first decade of independence there were three main trajectories regarding the
transformation of Soviet identities among Russians in Estonia: (1) into a local civic identity
either in its narrower political, or wider socio-territorial sense (expressed by identity categories
of Estonian citizen or inhabitant of Estonia); (2) into a minority identity either based on ethnocultural or linguistic self-identifications (expressed by identity categories of Estonian Russian or
Russian-speakers); (3) into a diaspora identity. This is a group of Russians who have not found
an identifying framework in the Estonian context that offers a substitute to the previous Soviet
70
Data is from Vihalemm, T. (2005): The Strategies of Identity Re-construction in Post-Soviet Estonia. Pro
Ethnologia 19, pp 59-84.
127
identity, and who reject the identifying categories related to citizenry or population of Estonia,
and instead prefers an extra-territorial identity rather than a minority identity.
Aksel Kirch and colleagues argue that the diaspora identity category – Russian of the near
abroad – was internalized among one-third of the older generation of Estonian Russians and was
also reflected among younger groups (Kirch et al, 1997).
All this could explain why the feelings of belonging to one’s ethnic group labeled “Russian”
among Russians in Estonia has not been as strong as it has been, or as strong as ethnic identity
among ethnic Estonians. But the relevance of these hypotheses for second generation Russians
are yet to be tested. The second generation Russians aged 18-35 included in our study, mostly
have no experience of socialization during Soviet times and therefore the replacement of Soviet
identity with something new is not essential to them personally, though the previous Soviet
identity of their parents could have some impact on their identity. Still, in the case of the second
generation the question is more about identity construction than about replacement or
transformation.
Strong affiliation to ethnic group among Estonians is also explained by the fact that during the
period of re-establishing independence, as well as after, there was an actively constructed
Estonian identity as an ethno-cultural group, united by native origin, common culture, history,
national traditions, feelings, language, preservation of and pride in their culture and traditions, a
deep connection with the Estonian territory and landscape. The Estonian ethnic and political
identity shaped a common semantic field: “Estonian” was interpreted as belonging to the
Estonian nation in an ethno-cultural sense (Jakobson 2002). This is one of the reasons why there
is only a weakly developed common national identity in Estonia which unifies ethnic Estonians,
Russians and other ethnic groups living in Estonia.
According to the TIES survey data, both Estonian and Russian respondents from Tallinn feel
more strongly that they belong to their ethnic group compared with their co-ethnics from IdaVirumaa (Table 9.24).
Table 9.24 The strength of feelings of belonging to ethnic groups by place of residence and
ethnic groups
Russians
Strongly or very strongly
Moderately
Weakly or very weakly
Not at all
N
Estonians
Strongly or very strongly
Moderately
Weakly or very weakly
Not at all
N
Tallinn
Ida-Virumaa
75,8
18,4
4,8
1,0
66,4
29,6
3,3
0,7
207
301
92,1
7,9
-
85,3
14,3
0,4
-
254
231
128
One explanation for these differences among Russian respondents could be that in Ida-Virumaa
ethnic differences are not as pronounced in everyday life, as most people in that region are
either ethnically Russian or Russian-speakering with another ethnic background. However this
does not explain the similar differences in ethnic identity among Estonian respondents. Finding
ab explanation for these differences will be a task of further analysis.
Other demographic variables like sex, age or educational level of respondents are not
statistically significant for the strength of ethnic identity. For Russian respondents, citizenship
status is significantly associated with feelings of belonging to ethnic group. Respondents with
Estonian citizenship indicate a weaker affiliation with the ethnic group labeled “Russians” than
do respondents with Russian citizenship, or those with undetermined citizenship status (Table
9.25).
Table 9.25 The strength of feelings of belonging to Russians by citizenship status
Citizenship status
Estonian citizen
Russian citizen
No citizenship
Strongly or very strongly
66,2
76,5
77,0
Moderately
27,3
19,6
21,6
Weakly or very weakly
5,8
2,0
0,7
Not at all
0,7
2,0
0,7
293
51
148
N
In the written part of the questionnaire there was a question for measuring ethnic identity by
using statements on ethnic pride and attachment to one’s ethnic group. Table 9.26 gives an
overview of how Estonian and Russian respondents answered these questions.
Table 9.26 Agreement with the statement on ethnic attachment and pride by ethnic group
1. Being a Russian/Estonian is an
important part of myself
Russians
Estonians
Strongly agree
32,5
59,2
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
42,2
22,4
2,4
0,6
505
28,0
11,2
0,8
0,8
483
Strongly agree
23,5
51,3
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
40,4
23,9
10,7
1,6
507
31,0
13,5
3,8
0,4
480
N
2. I see myself as a real
Russian/Estonian
N
129
3. When somebody says something
bad about Russians/Estonians I
feel personally offended*
Strongly agree
22,3
22,8
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
42,8
24,3
8,4
2,2
502
37,6
23,2
12,2
4,1
482
Strongly agree
0,5
0,6
Agree
1,0
0,8
Neither agree nor disagree
10,0
5,8
Disagree
33,6
18,5
Strongly disagree
54,8
74,3
500
482
Strongly agree
29,6
51,6
Agree
42,5
34,5
Neither agree nor disagree
21,6
11,2
Disagree
5,4
2,3
Strongly disagree
1,0
0,4
504
481
Strongly agree
20,6
67,7
Agree
43,4
25,5
Neither agree nor disagree
29,1
5,2
Disagree
5,1
1,4
Strongly disagree
1,8
0,2
505
483
N
4. I often wish to conceal the fact that
I am a Russian/an Estonian
N
5. It is important to me to know
Russian/Estonian history, culture,
customs and traditions
N
6. I feel that I am part of
Russian/Estonian nation
N
Differences between Estonian and Russian respondents are significant in answers for all of the
questions, except for statement no 3 (When somebody says something bad about
Russians/Estonians I feel personally offended). For all the other statements the answers of
Estonian respondents represent a much stronger ethnic identity compared with Russian
respondents: 87,2% of Estonians compared to 74,7% of Russian respondents agree that being a
member of their ethnic group is an important part of themselves; 82,3% of Estonians and 63,9%
Russians agree with statement about seeing themselves as a real member of their ethnic group;
92,8% of Estonian and 88,4% of Russian respondents disagree with the statement on the desire
to conceal the fact that they are the members of their ethnic groups; 86,1% of Estonians
consider it important to know Estonian history, culture, customs and traditions compared with
72,1% of Russian respondents who agreed with a similar statement on Russian history and
culture.;93,2% of Estonians and 64% of Russian respondents feel a part of either the Estonian or
Russian nation respectively.
130
Estonian respondents tended to choose more the option that they strongly agree/disagree with
the statement while Russian youth used less the extreme points on the scale to evaluate their
attachment to their ethnic group.
9.6 Conclusion: Comparing the Identity Structure of Russian and Estonian
Youth
The aim of this chapter is to examine how the identity structures of Estonian and Russian differ
with respect to the internalization of specified identity categories on territorial (local vs global),
civic-political, religious and ethno-cultural dimensions.
For Estonians, ethnic identity is the most strongly presented identity. The second most
important category is the civic identity category. The majority of Estonian youth identify
themselves with these two categories strongly or very strongly. The third strongest identity is
the local identity dimension presented as the inhabitants of the city of residence. Somehow
weaker is the identification on the European level but Estonians identifies themselves most
weakly with religious groups.
Ethnic identity is also for Russian youth the most strongly internalized identity category
amongst the specified categories. But local instead of civic identity is the second strongest
affiliation category for Russians. Estonian citizens are the third group to which Russian youth
feel they belong. Unlike Estonians, Russian respondents use religious identity for selfidentification and religiosity is stronger than the extra-territorial category “European” which is
the weakest identity dimension in Russians’ identity structure.
References
Bosswick, W., and Heckmann, F. 2006. Integration of Migrants: Contribution on local and
regional authorities, European Foundation for the development of Living and Working
Conditions.
Brubaker, R. 1996. Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New
Europe. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cakars, J. 2003. Religion in Estonia, Research in English. Religion in Eastern Europe XXII, 6,
Dec 2003, 26.
Jakobson, V. 2002. “Collective identities constructed in the Russian press”. In The challenge of
Russian minority. Emerging Multicultural Democracy in Estonia, eds M. Lauristin and M.
Heidments, Tartu University Press, 175-184.
Jenkins, R. 2004. Social Identity. Routledge.
131
Kirch, A., Kirch, M., and Tuisk, T. 1997. Vene noorte etnilise ja kultuurilise identiteedi
muutused aastatel 1993-1996. In Vene noored Eestis: sotsioloogiline mosaiik, ed. P. Järve
Tallinn: Projekt VERA and Avita, 47-67.
Nimmerfeldt, G. 2006. Identity and Social-psychological Adaptation Strategies: Theoretical
Framework for and Operationalisation of Reactive Identity Approach. Qualitative analysis of
identity formation processes of Russians born in Estonia. MA diss. University of Tallinn.
Nimmerfeldt, G., Taru, M., Vetik, R., and Vihma, P. 2007. Noored Maardus ja Maardu noorte
silmade läbi. Research report of project “Identity, social and political activity and integration
attitudes among youth in Maardu”, IISS/Maardu City Government.
Thomassen, J. and Bäck, H. 2008. European citizenship and identity after enlargement. EUI
Working Paper. SPS No 2008/2. European University Institute, Department of Political and
Social Sciences.
Vetik, R. and Nimmerfeldt, G. 2008. National identity. Comparison of Estonians and Russians.
Research report. IISS/the State Chancellery, November 2008
Vihalemm, T. and Masso, A. 2002a. The formation of imagined borders in Post-Soviet Estonia:
Diaspora or Local Community?, Journal of Borderlands Studies, 17/2: 35-52.
Vihalemm, T. and Masso, A. 2002b. Patterns of Self-Identification among Younger Generation
of Estonian Russians. In The challenge of Russian minority. Emerging Multicultural Democracy
in Estonia, eds. M. Lauristin and M. Heidments. Tartu University Press, 185- 198.
Vihalemm, T. & Masso, A. 2003. Kollektiivsed identiteedid sirdeaja Eestis. In Eesti elavik 21.
sajandi algul: ülevaade uurimuse Mina. Maailm. Meedia tulemustest, eds Kalmus, V.;
Lauristin, M.; Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, P. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, 45 - 55.
Vihalemm, T., and Masso, A. 2004. Kollektiivsed identiteedid siirdeaja Eestis, in Eesti elavik
21. sajandi algul, eds V. Kalmus, M., Lauristin, P. Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt. 45-55.
Vihalemm, T. 2005. The Strategies of Identity Re-construction in Post-Soviet Estonia. Pro
Ethnologia 19:59-84.
Vihalemm, T. And Masso, A 2007. (Re)Construction of Collective Identities after the
Dissolution of the Soviet Union: The Case of Estonia, Nationalities Papers, 35/1, March 2007:
71-91.
132